Preamble

The House met at half-past Two o'clock

PRAYERS

[MADAM SPEAKER in the Chair]

PRIVATE BUSINESS

CITY OF LONDON (WARD ELECTIONS) BILL (By ORDER)

Order for further consideration, as amended, read.

To be further considered on Wednesday 22 March.

Oral Answers to Questions — NORTHERN IRELAND

The Secretary of State was asked—

Peace Process

Mr. John McFall: If he will make a statement on the peace process in Northern Ireland. [113215]

Mr. Michael Fabricant: If he will make a statement on the current situation regarding the peace process. [113219]

The Secretary of State for Northern Ireland (Mr. Peter Mandelson): Following the Government's decision on 11 February to suspend the operation of the institutions so as to preserve them for restoration, I had useful discussions last week with the political parties in Northern Ireland and with the Irish Government. Those will continue in the United States over the next few days. I remain convinced that there is the will and the desire to see the Good Friday agreement implemented in full. We shall continue to do all that we can to achieve that in close co-operation with the Irish Government and the political parties in Northern Ireland.

Mr. McFall: Does the Secretary of State agree that the transformation that has occurred in Northern Ireland over the past few years is solely down to the Good Friday agreement? In many instances, the people have been ahead of the politicians in realising that. Does he accept that no politician or political party has any copyright on the agreement, and that if there is to be any revision of it, that must be done through agreement, discussion and consensus between all the people and parties involved?

Mr. Mandelson: The Good Friday agreement represents a potential sea-change in the fortunes of Northern Ireland. Despite all that has happened, we certainly cannot stand still. Indeed, no one can afford to

opt out. We are working to implement the agreement in all its aspects; large swathes of it—human rights, equality, policing, criminal justice and other matters—will continue to be implemented. We want to see the institutions resume their operation as quickly as possible, but that must be on the basis of cross-community participation.
As I said, talks started last week and they will continue. We shall certainly not give up. We are deciding the future not of politicians in Northern Ireland, but of every family in Northern Ireland. That is why the process is so important and we shall spare no effort.

Mr. Fabricant: The Secretary of State will know that Real IRA have acquired updated RPG7 rocket launchers from the Balkans, with other weapons. Is he also aware that some of the terrorists now being released have joined Real IRA? Will he not say that enough is enough? Until we see some decommissioning, no more political or terrorist prisoners should be released.

Mr. Mandelson: I cannot confirm any of the information that the hon. Gentleman has given the House. Under the agreement, the continuation of early releases is linked to the maintenance of each paramilitary ceasefire. I will, of course, keep each ceasefire under regular and constant review.

Dr. Norman A. Godman: Given the serious problems with the process, and given my question to the Secretary of State last month in which I urged the leader of the Ulster Unionist party to relax his 12 February deadline, will my right hon. Friend begin negotiations from the standpoint of having 22 May as the beginning of the decommissioning process rather than its end?

Mr. Mandelson: I can certainly say firmly that no single party can unilaterally change what is in the agreement. Realistically, the prospects for achieving complete decommissioning by 22 May are poor. However, there are two extreme views as to the consequences if it is not achieved. Mr. Adams seems to be suggesting that we just forget about decommissioning. Others say that it must mean the end of the agreement altogether. Both views are wrong. Decommissioning will not go away; it remains an essential part of the peace process and of the Good Friday agreement. However, the only way to achieve decommissioning is through the full implementation of the agreement; that is what we shall continue to work on.

Mr. John D. Taylor: Has the Secretary of State seen this morning's press reports that Mr. Gerry Adams has said that there will be no political progress whatever in Washington this week, and that there will be no decommissioning of illegal armaments by 22 May this year, as required in the Belfast agreement? Accordingly, if that is correct, will the Assembly remain in suspension after 22 May? What will happen?

Mr. Mandelson: No; I hope very much that the Assembly, the Executive and all the institutions will be reactivated long in advance of 22 May. It is imperative that that be achieved, so that the issue of decommissioning, in conjunction with that reactivation, can be settled one way or another to everyone's


satisfaction. Only in that way shall we be able to accommodate the deadline of 22 May—in the context of functioning institutions. Politics that works in Northern Ireland is the essential condition for progress.

Mr. Lembit Öpik: What is the Secretary of State's view of the Alliance party's six-point plan to break the deadlock in the peace process? It seems to me that some of the ideas are original and could be helpful.

Mr. Mandelson: There is a lot of interest in those ideas. I had the opportunity to discuss the six-point plan with an Alliance party delegation who came to see me last week. The plan is positive and constructive, and it makes a good contribution to the current consultation of all parties. I have not heard what the other pro-agreement parties' view of the Alliance proposals is, but I shall look closely at any such measures that are able to generate cross-party confidence and support.

Mr. Harry Barnes: All over the world Irish people and their friends are preparing to celebrate St. Patrick's day. Some will return from overseas to the island of Ireland to do so, apart from those who have been sent into exile by paramilitary groups. Is it not the case that the peace agreement will have delivered fully only when exiles can return to Ireland to join in the celebrations?

Mr. Mandelson: I strongly echo my hon. Friend's remarks. Such exile is unacceptable, it must be reversed and we must create the conditions in which it is. Apart from the people to whom my hon. Friend referred, there are many young people who have left Northern Ireland because they have despaired of the inability to create lasting peace and prosperity and a half-decent future in which to bring up their families. I want all those young people to be exiles from Northern Ireland no longer; I want them to return, and I want them to be leaders in Northern Ireland. I do not want any more young people having to find their fortune and to bring up their families elsewhere. They should remain where they belong—with their families and friends in Northern Ireland.

Mr. Andrew MacKay: As the Secretary of State examines ways of taking the process forward at this difficult time, will he give the House a guarantee that any change in forces' levels in Northern Ireland will be a decision that he takes alone, and that it will be taken purely on security, and not political, grounds—and after consultation with the General Officer Commanding the Army and the Chief Constable of the Royal Ulster Constabulary?

Mr. Mandelson: We all want to normalise security arrangements in Northern Ireland as soon as possible, and I know that the right hon. Gentleman shares that objective. Normalisation is not about making concessions and it is not about wishful thinking. It reflects precisely what is happening on the ground, the progress that we have made and the progress that we have yet to make. I pay tribute to the Garda and the Irish Army for their successes against dissidents. However, we have responsibility for security in Northern Ireland, and I shall listen to the Chief Constable's advice. He and the GOC will decide the troop

numbers that they need and where and how they want to deploy them. If they want to make changes, they will announce those changes, which will be made for good reasons, in their own time.

Mr. MacKay: Is the Secretary of State aware that his answer will be gratefully received in Northern Ireland and among the armed forces, and with some surprise, not least because of the disgraceful remarks that he made on Irish television last week, when he described the Army as chinless wonders? I am sure that he now deeply regrets those remarks, so will he take this opportunity to apologise publicly to the Army, and more particularly to the families of soldiers who have lost their lives in Northern Ireland during the recent troubles?

Mr. Mandelson: I have absolutely no hesitation in expressing again my regret for the remark that I made. I think that the right hon. Gentleman is, for his own political purposes, slightly egging the pudding, and he is being a little harsh. He will accept that all politicians are allowed the occasional gaffe, if only to remind the public that they are still human.

Kali Mountford: Is not the Good Friday agreement not only the best agreement on offer but the only one? I would hope that it has the support of all Members of this place, and certainly that of the British people. Is not the best thing now for everybody to come together to support the agreement so that we can realise the hope that is offered by the agreement? Does my right hon. Friend agree that republicans and Unionists work together at many levels in government and throughout other institutions? Does that not offer real hope for success?

Mr. Mandelson: My hon. Friend is absolutely right. Despite the understandable expressions of anger and some acrimony that followed the unfortunate but inevitable decision by the Government to suspend the institutions, people from different parties and different parts of the political spectrum are continuing to work extremely well throughout Northern Ireland, most notably in local government. We can get progress only with agreement on the part of Unionists, nationalists and republicans. That requires confidence on all sides, which was badly dented earlier this year. It is to restoring the confidence that all parties need to go forward that we are devoting our energies, and we shall continue to do so.

Ministerial Posts

Mr. William Thompson: What discussions he has had with the Prime Minister on the complement of his Department's Ministers since the suspension of the Northern Ireland Executive. [113216]

The Secretary of State for Northern Ireland (Mr. Peter Mandelson): No discussions have taken place with my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister on the complement of Northern Ireland Office Ministers since suspension took place on 12 February.

Mr. Thompson: Given the disarray and acrimony among the pro-agreement parties, surely it is unrealistic to imagine that there will be an early return to an Executive in


Northern Ireland. Surely the Secretary of State is burying his head in the sand to think so. May I ask the right hon. Gentleman to reconsider his view? It is unrealistic to expect two Ministers to cover 10 Departments in Northern Ireland. As it may be some time before an Executive is re-formed, surely we need extra Ministers to ensure that important decisions can be made and implemented and that we have the continuation of good government.

Dr. Norman A. Godman: He is looking for a job.

Mr. Mandelson: I do not know whether that was an offer by the hon. Member for West Tyrone (Mr. Thompson).
The decision of my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister not to reappoint additional Ministers reflects our desire to make the renewed period of direct rule as short as possible. I can assure the hon. Gentleman that no local departmental matters will be neglected in the meantime. I hope that we can restart the institutions as soon as possible. They are certainly needed if we are to be successful in implementing the Good Friday agreement as a whole, and that is in the urgent interests of all the people of Northern Ireland.

Mrs. Anne Campbell: Does my right hon. Friend agree that while the parties are continuing to talk round the table and the ceasefire remains intact, the two Governments are absolutely right in their determination to keep all possible avenues open so that parties can take the important extra step?

Mr. Mandelson: Yes, that is very important, and it is particularly important that the two Governments continue to work closely together. We are working with them and in co-operation with the parties. The consultations that both Governments started and had with the parties last week will continue in Washington, as I have said, over St. Patrick's day. Next week, my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister and the Taoiseach will meet to review what progress has been made, and I think that that is to be followed by an intensive period of activity prior to the Easter break.

Employment

Mr. Tony Colman: If he will make a statement on levels of employment in Northern Ireland. [113217]

The Minister of State, Northern Ireland Office (Mr. Adam Ingram): Latest estimates derived from the labour force survey show that there were approximately 691,000 persons employed in Northern Ireland in the period November 1999 to January 2000.

Mr. Colman: I thank the Minister for that information and congratulate him on his work in ensuring that unemployment has fallen steadily in Northern Ireland over the past three years. I commend the work of the Industrial Development Board, so ably chaired by Alan Gillespie. Does my hon. Friend share my amazement that the £400 million loan guarantee and the £38 million of intervention fund grants were described by Harland and Wolff management, in its tender for the Cunard liner, as too little, too late, and contrast that with the general

welcome that has been given by both sides of the House to the £500 million loan guarantee given to British Aerospace, which will result in many jobs?

Mr. Ingram: I thank my hon. Friend for making a good point. The scale of the offer to Harland and Wolff was unprecedented. It involved two Departments: the Department of Trade and Industry and the Northern Ireland Office. It is a matter of regret that the yard did not obtain the contract; if it had, future employment could have been guaranteed to some extent.
I share my hon. Friend's amazement that the official Conservative spokesman on Northern Ireland has criticised the Government's actions. He represents a party that, in the 1980s, went out of its way to destroy the manufacturing sector throughout the United Kingdom and argued against any form of state intervention to support companies. We have shown our determination to save the yard and we shall continue to work to do so.

Mr. Roy Beggs: In spite of the Minister's heavy load, he will be aware of the fears of Harland and Wolff's 1,700 employees and the many hundreds of others whose livelihood depends on continuous employment in the shipyard. Although the recent lack of success is disappointing, will he continue to work with management and trade unions to secure a future for Harland and Wolff and to save the shipyard from closure?

Mr. Ingram: I met senior management of Harland and Wolff last Friday, after the announcement was made. I have offered to meet them again to discuss what assistance we can offer the company in bidding for future contracts, because we value the yard and the type and quality of work it brings to Northern Ireland's economy. I am due to meet unions to discuss their concerns. I welcome the hon. Gentleman's comments.

Mr. Peter Robinson: Has the Minister had an opportunity to speak to his right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Defence about the possibility of the Ministry of Defence revising its timetable for placing orders and seeking quotes from various yards within the United Kingdom in respect of MOD contracts?

Mr. Ingram: It is more appropriate that I first discuss in detail with the company the contracts for which it intends to bid. If it wants additional support from my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland and me in terms of making representations to other Departments, we stand ready to hear its requests and to make such representations.

Decommissioning

Mr. Nigel Waterson: What assessment he has made of when the decommissioning section of the Belfast agreement will be fully implemented. [113218]

The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Northern Ireland (Mr. George Howarth): As the hon. Gentleman will be aware, under the Good Friday agreement all parties are committed to working to achieve complete decommissioning by May 2000. In the context of the implementation of the overall settlement,


the obligation is on the paramilitaries to make clear how and when they will put their illegal arms fully and completely beyond use. They should do so without delay.

Mr. Waterson: Can the Minister confirm the parliamentary answers given to my hon. Friend the Member for North Shropshire (Mr. Paterson), to the effect that since the Good Friday agreement more than 2,400 injuries and 49 deaths have been inflicted by terrorists in Northern Ireland? Does not that underline the importance of making no more significant concessions to Sinn Fein until there is meaningful and verifiable decommissioning?

Mr. Howarth: Of course any violence is to be deplored and no member of the Government would apologise on behalf of any party involved in violence. We will behave toward such parties in the appropriate way. However, the hon. Gentleman should be aware that our actions should not be regarded as concessions; they are all part of the Good Friday agreement. It is not true to say that we are making concessions. What we are doing is delivering on the obligations that we and all the other parties made when we signed up to the Good Friday agreement.

Mr. Ken Maginnis: Will the Minister join me in deploring the fact that not one of his colleagues on the Government side of the House seems interested in decommissioning, or has asked a question on that issue? Will he confirm that he and the Secretary of State still consider decommissioning an essential part of the Belfast agreement, and that they will not be beguiled by the unilateral dissent from the 22 May date demonstrated by the junior Minister at the Department of Foreign Affairs in Dublin? Can the Minister—[interruption.] I know that Labour Members do not want to hear about decommissioning. Has the Secretary of State obtained an answer to the question put by the hon. Member for Newry and Armagh (Mr. Mallon)? Does the IRA intend to disarm, and if so, when?

Mr. Howarth: I do not know whether the hon. Gentleman was in the House at the time, but if he was, he would have heard my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State dealing earlier with questions from both sides of the House on the subject of decommissioning. And a few moments ago, I dealt directly with a question on decommissioning from an Opposition Member. With all the respect that I can summon for the hon. Gentleman, I conclude that he was not listening, or he chose to ignore what took place earlier.
My right hon. Friend, Ministers from the Republic of Ireland and I are working hard to ensure that all the important aspects of the Good Friday agreement, including decommissioning, are met in a way that is acceptable within the terms of the agreement. That is what my right hon. Friend said, and I repeat it. I do not know what more I can say to satisfy the hon. Gentleman, except that I know that he agrees with us on that point.

Mr. Robert McCartney: Is the Minister aware that the Secretary of State said earlier that decommissioning could take place only in the context of the overall implementation of the agreement? Are they

both aware that that is an exact repetition of the IRA demand made in its statement to General de Chastelain in February this year?

Mr. Howarth: The hon. and learned Gentleman is trying to work into his question and our answer some sort of collusion that does not exist. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State has given a proper assessment of the situation as regards decommissioning, in the context of the Good Friday agreement. To seek to misinterpret or reinterpret that is nothing short of mischievous. If the hon. and learned Gentleman wants to be mischievous, that is his prerogative. We are seeking to bring about peace, and I am sure the entire House would agree that that is the right thing to do.

Mr. John M. Taylor: Will the Minister give an assurance to the House this afternoon that the Executive will not be reconvened until there has been a serious start on decommissioning?

Mr. Howarth: The hon. Gentleman ought to be aware of the fact that we are seriously engaged with our colleagues from Ireland and all the other parties that signed up to the agreement in trying to get the process back on track. I shall not second-guess where those discussions will lead. However, we are seeking to deliver every part of the Good Friday agreement, which includes obligations on decommissioning.

Miss Anne McIntosh: May I press the Minister further? What evidence is there that there will be any decommissioning before 22 May?

Mr. Howarth: At the moment, there is no evidence that decommissioning will be completed—or even started—by 22 May. That is why my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister will be involved in discussions with the Taoiseach next week, and why my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State and I met our Irish colleagues and representatives of the political parties last week. We are trying to deliver the Good Friday agreement in full. We shall continue to pursue that objective.

Oral Answers to Questions — PRIME MINISTER

The Prime Minister was asked—

Engagements

Mr. Simon Burns: If he will list his official engagements for Wednesday 15 March.

The Prime Minister (Mr. Tony Blair): This morning, I had meetings with ministerial colleagues and others. In addition to my duties in the House, I shall have further such meetings later today.

Mr. Burns: Does the Prime Minister agree that the incidence of beggars in the street caused by economic migration to this country is an affront? Will he answer the question that my hon. Friend the Member for Croydon, South (Mr. Ottaway) asked him two weeks ago: why do


council tax payers have to pick up the bill for the mess in the Home Office, which deals with a record number of bogus asylum seekers who come here because the Government's policy has made the country a soft touch for economic migrants?

The Prime Minister: First, we are making available up to £10 million of extra special grants to support local authorities this year. As for the rules on asylum, they were introduced by the Conservative Government. In the teeth of Conservative opposition, this Government are changing the asylum rules so that from 3 April proper asylum measures will be in place for the first time, no thanks to the Conservative party.

:Mr. Richard Burden: Is my right hon. Friend aware that people throughout the west midlands and all areas that depend on the Rover group are holding their collective breath this afternoon as reports come from Germany? Does he agree that it is intolerable that people should hear about further threats to their livelihoods from a newspaper leak in south Germany? Does he also agree that BMW and the Government agreed an aid package on the basis of BMW's long-term commitment to the Rover group and that BMW should remember that in its board meeting tomorrow, and keep faith with the many thousands of people throughout the country who have kept faith with them over the years? Will my right hon. Friend do all that he can to safeguard jobs in that vital manufacturing industry?

The Prime Minister: I agree with my hon. Friend. We have made it clear that we have been willing to back BMW's plans with Government support. That has been made clear repeatedly in the past few months, and was reiterated today. We are in close touch with the company. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry spoke to the chairman of Rover today; he will also speak to the BMW chairman. He has made clear the enormous strategic importance that we attach to safeguarding Rover's future. We shall do everything we can, including making good our offer of support, to safeguard the future of the plant.

Mr. William Hague: Before the election, the Prime Minister promised that he had no plans to increase tax. Yesterday, his press secretary—[Interruption.]

Madam Speaker: Order. Less noise down there.

Mr. Hague: Yesterday, the Prime Minister's press secretary said that the Government had increased taxes. In that new spirit of honesty, will the Prime Minister admit that Labour's promises on taxes at the election were a total, barefaced election lie?

The Prime Minister: I certainly will not. We promised that we would not raise the basic, standard or higher rate of tax, and we kept that promise. For the first two years, the Government's duty was to cut the huge deficit that we inherited. However, this financial year, the tax burden falls; that will happen again next year. Future years depend on Budget decisions. No risks will—or should—be taken with the strength and stability of the economy.
We inherited a national debt that had doubled and a borrowing requirement of £28 billion. When we came to office, we were paying more in interest payments on the debt under Tory plans than we were spending on the whole school system. I make no apology for saying that we cut the budget deficit in our first two years. We were right to do that.

Mr. Hague: Well, the Prime Minister has obviously forgotten what he said. He said he had
no plans to increase tax at all.
Was that just a joke or another rib tickler from the Secretary of State for Education and Employment, launched upon the country? Let me remind him that he said:
our proposals do not involve raising taxes.
That was in August 1996. He said:
we want people to pay lower taxes.
That was September 1996. He said:
the programme of the Labour Party does not imply any tax increases.
That was January 1997. He said:
The entire Tory case that there is a … hidden agenda … of tax increases is simply untrue.
That was April 1997. So it was not a joke; it was systematic, dishonest and deliberately misleading. Yesterday, his press secretary admitted that the tax burden had risen, so will he now admit that he has broken that whole long list of promises?

The Prime Minister: Not at all.

An hon. Member: He is a liar.

Madam Speaker: Order. Where did that come from? Where did that come from? [Interruption.] Order. I see that no one is going to own up, but I distinctly heard it.

The Prime Minister: This quote—
our principle to establish sound public finances comes first—[Official Report, 25 January 1994; Vol. 236, c. 170.]
is from the right hon. Gentleman's shadow Chancellor, when he was dealing with the last Tory deficit. For the first two years we had to get rid of the budget deficit. As a result of those measures, and I make no apology for them, the tax burden is falling this year and will fall again next year. Look at the result of the policy: for the first time in decades, the economy has slowed without a recession; debt repayments are £4 billion less this year—money that goes to public services; interest rates are half what they were for years under the Tories; and there are 800,000 more jobs, higher living standards and more take-home pay. Yes, we are proud of our economic record.

Mr. Hague: And the Prime Minister still will not admit what is clearly true: he has broken that whole long list of election promises. Now that he is letting his press secretary speak on the record, he will have to get used to this problem because we can see that his answers are less honest than those of his press secretary. "Less honest than Alastair Campbell" are not words that any of us want on our tombstones. His Government have increased taxes on mortgages and marriages, petrol and pensions, savers and self-employed, large businesses and small, air travel and


insurance, and home buying and charities. The result is not only that taxes have gone up, but that they are continuing to rise. Will he admit not only that he has broken his promise not to raise taxation, but that he is continuing to break that promise?

The Prime Minister: No. The figures are 36.5 per cent. for 1997–98 and 37.4 per cent. for 1998–99, falling to 37 per cent. this year and 36.8 per cent. next year. I also have the figures that the right hon. Gentleman agreed to when a member of the Cabinet in 1996. I think the House should hear them: 36.3 per cent. in 1997–98, 36.6 per cent. in 1998–99, and 37.1 per cent. and then 37.6 per cent. We can simply look at the Tory record. If it is immoral to raise taxes ever, then the last Tory Government were immoral, were they? I have looked at the record under Margaret Thatcher. The tax burden rose by 3 per cent. Was she immoral? [HON. MEMBERS: "Yes!"] I am sorry to say that about someone who I know means so much to the right hon. Gentleman, but we do not have to look at the last Tory record. Let us look at the last two years of the Tory Government, when he was a Cabinet Minister. The tax burden went up a full 2 per cent. Was he immoral?

Mr. Hague: Let us have a look. Everything that the Prime Minister has said is based on the Chancellor's way of calculating the tax take.
PricewaterhouseCoopers, one of the largest accounting firms in the world, says that the Government's figures are a less accurate indicator, because they involve reclassifying items in the middle of the period. That is polite accountant-speak for a barefaced election lie, which is what we were talking about at the beginning. The figures also show that the tax burden will continue to rise from this year to next year, from next year to the year after and so on, until the last possible date for a general election.
Is it not now clear from all independent sources that the Prime Minister has broken his promises, and is continuing to break them?

The Prime Minister: No. The PricewaterhouseCoopers figures exclude the working families tax credit as a tax cut; if it is added, the figures are as I said.
What is the right hon. Gentleman's policy? His policy is the Tory tax guarantee. That was tried before, in the late 1980s and early 1990s, and what did it give us? Interest rates went through the roof, 1 million jobs were lost in manufacturing alone, there was record borrowing and recession; and then what? Twenty-two Tory tax rises.
Yesterday, the right hon. Gentleman said that it was the moral duty of Government always to cut taxes. [HON. MEMBERS: "Hear, hear."]. Hon. Members say "Hear, hear"; I say that a return to boom and bust is not moral. What is moral about 3 million unemployed? What is moral about 1 million small businesses going to the wall? What is moral about 1 million homes being repossessed? What is moral about 4 million children living in poverty that we inherited?
We know Tory morality: tax cuts for a few at the top, and boom and bust for the rest of us.

Mr. Hague: What is moral about breaking every promise on taxation, and delivering worse public services at the same time? Let us have an answer now: does the Prime Minister admit that he has broken all those promises? The Organisation for Economic Co-operation and

Development says that Britain has the fastest-rising tax burden in the developed world. The Institute of Fiscal Studies says that
there is no question that UK taxes are rising.
So do the Confederation of British Industry, the Institute of Directors, the British Chambers of Commerce and the Fabian Society. [Interruption.] Even the Fabian Society. The Prime Minister should pays more attention to his heartland. [Interruption.] We know that Labour Members do not want to hear about what they have done—[Interruption.]

Madam Speaker: Order. I will have order in the House, on both sides.

Mr. Hague: Every independent organisation agrees that the tax burden is continuing to rise. No independent organisation accepts the figures that the Prime Minister just gave, because there is no institute of manipulation and broken promises.
Let us ask the Prime Minister the question for the fifth time. Is it not clear that he has broken all his promises on taxation?

The Prime Minister: No. The promise that we made about the basic, standard and higher rates of income tax has been kept, and rightly too; but we do not, I repeat, make any apologies for having got rid of the budget deficit in our first two years. Surely what the country needs above all else economically is stability and strength, and surely, when there are more jobs, higher living standards, more take-home pay and greater stability in the economy than we have had for years, that is the right test of an economic policy. If we went back down the road proposed by the right hon. Gentleman—massive tax cuts, at the same time as promises of extra spending—we would end up with cuts in public spending, increased taxes, and boom and bust. That is the truth.

Mr. Hague: We would not end up with those things. Of course we would not. What about saving the hundreds of millions of pounds that are being spent on asylum seekers because the right hon. Gentleman has made this country a soft touch? What about saving tens of millions of pounds on preparing for the euro, when people do not want to join the euro? What about saving the extra £1,000 million that the right hon. Gentleman has spent on running Whitehall? What about saving on the welfare budget, which has run out of control while we have proposed savings of £3 billion?
Is it not clear that the right hon. Gentleman's promises have been systematically, deliberately and endlessly broken, and is it not clear that this is the Government who tax more and deliver less?

The Prime Minister: As for that last rant, let me first deal with the welfare position. Under this Government, the welfare bills on social and economic failure are £4 billion down as a result of the new deal. On welfare spending, even if the working families tax credit, the increased child benefit and the extra money for pensioners, which the right hon. Gentleman is opposed to, are included in that—let me give him the figures—it is a 1 per cent. real-terms increase over this Parliament. When he was in office, it was a 4 per cent. real-terms increase, so contrast that with the idea that he will get all this money out of the welfare budget.
As for asylum, the right hon. Gentleman's party opposed the measure that we are introducing from this April to replace the benefits for everyone with a tougher, tighter system. The Tory proposals on the Immigration and Asylum Act 1999, which the shadow Home Secretary tabled, would have added £500 million to the bill, so, next time he engages in some economic debate, let him get his facts right.

Angela Smith: The Prime Minister will be aware that many Labour Members take every opportunity to lobby him for extra resources for our constituencies, particularly in health and education. Has he received any representations from Conservative Members for cuts in services in their constituencies, given their tax guarantee? Does he believe that we can spend more if we are getting less in?

The Prime Minister: I should inform the House of the latest stage of the Conservatives' thinking. What they now desire to do is not just to oppose the extra money on schools and hospitals as reckless and irresponsible; they are now saying that they are going to savage the welfare budget. But the part of the welfare budget that they will savage is the extra £100 for pensioners, the extra child benefit, the working families tax credit and the new deal. We will expose it day in, day out before the election.

Mr. Charles Kennedy: The House is rightly concerned about possible overheating of the economy, but we should be much more concerned about the clear overheating of the leader of the Tory party. Will the Prime Minister resist the Conservative-led endeavours to get into a Dutch auction about tax? Will he take this opportunity to confirm that it remains his commitment and his ambition to get our health service spending—what people really care about out there—up to European levels sooner rather than later?

The Prime Minister: We want to ensure that proper funds go into the national health service. We want, too, to ensure that hard-working families get the benefit of saving as much of their income as they can, which is why we have the basic rate income tax cut, but taxes should be cut consistent only with the proper management of the economy. Of course, that is the case.

Mr. Kennedy: At a time when we are seeing cardiac operations postponed, insufficient provision in intensive care, and the health service not meeting the aspirations that it felt it could attain under a new Labour Government, should not the priority for the Chancellor and the Prime Minister be further investment sooner rather than later, rather than a tax cut next month, which all evidence of public opinion shows people do not want as the public priority?

The Prime Minister: It is, of course, important to get the investment in the health service, but I emphasise to the right hon. Gentleman that we are already putting a substantial amount of extra investment into the health service. This is, after all, the first year of significant additional increases in health spending. For the first two years, for the very reason that I was giving earlier, we had to ensure that we brought the public finances under control, but we need to ensure that we get that extra investment—and we are. That is the very

reason why we now have 4,000 new nurses in the national health service and why all the accident and emergency departments are being renovated.
The right hon. Gentleman mentioned heart disease. There are problems in cardiac and cancer specialties. They can be cured only by more specialist staff, more intensive care beds and more consultants. We are investing in all three of those, but it does take time. This year, for example, we will have another 70 cardiac specialists coming on stream. In the years following, we will have even more than that, but it has to be done step by step, obviously, as a result of the problems that we inherited and as a result of the time that it takes to train people.

Mr. Tom Levitt: Will my right hon. Friend take this opportunity to express the House's gratitude to the members of the disability rights task force for the excellent work they have carried out over two and a half years? Does he have a message today for the newly appointed members of the Disability Rights Commission, who start their work next month?

The Prime Minister: We are proud of the work that will be undertaken by the Disability Rights Commission. I am sure that it will do an excellent job. That was a manifesto commitment, and we have fulfilled it. I am delighted to see that it has so much support everywhere in the country.

Mr. John Bercow: Given that there are now over 48,000 school classes with 31 or more pupils and that the number of secondary school classes with 36 or more pupils has more than doubled since he took office, should the Prime Minister's election slogan have been not "education, education, education", but "humbug, humbug, humbug"?

The Prime Minister: There are 300,000 five, six and seven-year-olds in classes of fewer than 30 pupils who were not in classes of fewer than 30 pupils during the time of the previous Government. The reason for that is simple: we took the measures necessary to reduce class sizes and we made the necessary investment. The hon. Gentleman opposed that investment. The truth is that we can get class sizes down only if we make the additional investment in the system. We are making that investment and the hon. Gentleman's party is opposing it.

Mr. Harry Barnes: One of the things that is wrong with the Leader of the Opposition is that he gives slapheads a bad name. I have a possible untapped tax suggestion for the Prime Minister, which could be developed. The exchange of goods and services throughout the world accounts for only a small amount of the money that changes hands. Most money is involved in currency speculation. If there were to be an internationally led tax on currency speculation, it would raise millions of pounds that could be used in Mozambique and other areas to tackle problems in the third world. Will our Government take a lead to see that that is on the agenda, because it needs to be done, not just by this Government but by other Governments and financial centres?

The Prime Minister: That is an interesting suggestion. I am sure that my right hon. Friend the Chancellor will have paid close attention to it. The best way to help the developing world is through the cancellation of debt. I am proud of the fact that our Chancellor and our Secretary of State for International Development have led the way on that. The Government are also increasing the aid and development budget, which means that millions of people throughout the world are feeling the benefit of our policies. I have a feeling that, although we will pay careful attention to my hon. Friend's suggestion, we will continue with our policy.

Mr. Andrew George: In welcoming the lobby here today, may I ask the Prime Minister whether he agrees that our dairy farmers are the best and most efficient in Europe, but have suffered the costs of gross negligence because of the Tory handling of BSE and the lowest prices in Europe as a result of the Government's failure to protect them from the larger processors and supermarkets? Does the Prime Minister really believe that 8p a pint for our dairy farmers is enough for them to survive? If not, what action will he take?

The Prime Minister: As the hon. Gentleman probably knows, on 30 March I have a meeting with representatives of the National Farmers Union and representatives of farmers in every part of the United Kingdom. We will see what measures we can take to help the dairy industry and other sectors, such as the pig industry, that are experiencing real difficulties. As I have said constantly, there is a limit to the amount of public subsidy we can provide. We are putting in a significant amount of money. We understand that the position has worsened recently, particularly for the dairy sector, and we will do what we can. I will say no more before the meeting on 30 March. We are aware of the problems, but we need long-term solutions as well as solutions to get them over a short-term crisis.

Mr. Barry Jones: Will my right hon. Friend forgive me if I tell him very bluntly, man to man, that—[Interruption.] Yes, I have been waiting years to tell my right hon. Friend this, whether he likes it or not. Does he know that, in my constituency, 4,200 Airbus workers are cheering the Government's decision to pay £530 million into the Airbus project, which will create 1,400 jobs in my constituency?
May I also tell my right hon. Friend that, among the work force, there is just a little perplexity that there seems to be some tardiness by the Welsh Assembly in its apparent inability to pay just £25 million in grant? Will he address that issue, send for the First Secretary—[Interruption.] Thank you very much for the £530 million.

The Prime Minister: I shall certainly use my renowned influence with the Welsh Assembly to make the points that my right hon. Friend has just made. It is a very important investment, which will not only bring jobs, but safeguard a large part of the United Kingdom's technological and skill base.

Mr. Christopher Chope: May I turn the Prime Minister's attention to the morality

of the taxation of employee benefits? For example, does he think that, when he paid for his nanny and butler to go to the south of France—for their first-class airfare and their holiday at the flat of the then Paymaster General—it was fair that the taxation liability for that holiday should have fallen on the nanny and the butler, rather than on him as their employer?

The Prime Minister: That is about the level of today's Conservative party. I do not know what nonsense there is about me having a butler—thank you very much—but, if the hon. Gentleman has any complaint—[Interruption.]

Madam Speaker: Order. Mr. Hayes, it is not your turn to ask questions.

The Prime Minister: If the hon. Member for Christchurch (Mr. Chope) has any complaint, he can take it to the appropriate authority. I should have thought that, when he had the chance to ask a question of the Prime Minister, he might have thought of a better one.

Mr. John McFall: Now that the £28 billion inherited public deficit has been eliminated, does the Prime Minister agree that it is a cause of optimism that, this year, economically, we have decreasing unemployment, stable prices and economic growth? Does he agree that a strong economy is needed to deliver a social justice agenda, for stronger public services, and for improvements for the poor and disadvantaged in our society? At the core of it, at the next general election, is not the real moral choice between a Government who care for a social justice agenda and an Opposition who, 20 years ago, threw such an agenda overboard?

The Prime Minister: It is important not only that we have rising prosperity in the British economy, which we have, but also that that prosperity is extended to everyone. That is the difference between the two sides. It could be no more clearly demonstrated than in the new deal, a policy that has delivered literally 200,000 people in unsubsidised jobs. The Conservatives consigned those 200,000 people to the scrap heap. Under new Labour, those people have been given choice and opportunity. That is the difference in the moral values between the two parties.

Mr. Roy Beggs: Having declared my interest in livestock, I have also readily taken the advice of my friends to look after my day job. Does the Prime Minister accept reports that, compared with their Great Britain counterparts, Northern Ireland farmers have fared disproportionately badly, sustaining a 79 per cent. drop in income since 1995, compared with a 60 per cent. drop in Great Britain? Will he give us an assurance that he will urgently consider the recommendations of the Northern Ireland Select Committee on the current problems in the livestock industry, and seek Treasury support to bring relief urgently?

The Prime Minister: Farmers in Northern Ireland will be represented at the 30 March meeting that I mentioned a


moment ago. The problem that the farming industry has had, in Northern Ireland and elsewhere, has been a combination, obviously, of the strong pound, which has caused problems, plus the leftover from the BSE crisis, which has hit not only the beef sector, but other sectors. We will do what we can in the short term to help the industry, and we have already drawn down very considerable sums to do that. However, it must be tied to a long-term strategy for the future health of the industry. The farmers that I meet do not want to be dependent on subsidy. They have a good business and they are working extremely hard. Our

agricultural produce is probably the finest anywhere in the world. We have to make sure that farmers live within a long-term strategy that gives them a viable future.

Madam Speaker: Thank you. Time is up.

Mr. Ken Maginnis: On a point of order, Madam Speaker.

Madam Speaker: There can be no points of order until after the statement.

Selection in Education

Mrs. Theresa May: (by private notice): To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment to clarify the Government's position on selection in education following their defeat in the House of Lords yesterday on amendment No. 138A to the Learning and Skills Bill.

The Secretary of State for Education and Employment (Mr. David Blunkett): I am happy to repeat the Government's position on grammar schools. We have said on a number of occasions that we have no intention of changing the status of grammar schools unless parents wish it. I am happy to repeat that commitment today.
The policy that we set out in 1995 and in our manifesto in 1997 indicated that we would leave the decision on grammar schools to parents and that they would continue with the 11-plus only if parents wished it. Our position remains the same today. In that agreed policy statement, we were clear that we were not in favour of the 11-plus; nor were we in favour of tackling grammar schools without parents being involved. That was agreed by both Houses of Parliament and was affirmed in the School Standards and Framework Act 1998.
Last night, my noble Friend the Minister for Education and Employment confirmed that position and indicated that the House of Commons would seek to reverse the Lords amendment. I repeat that commitment today—we shall seek to overturn that amendment when the Learning and Skills Bill comes before the Commons.
We fully respect the vote of parents in Ripon, but we find it extraordinary that from one ballot in one grammar school, one should argue that all other ballots should be overturned and the rights of parents denied. If that were the case, a by-election would determine the results of the following general election. Had that been the case, the Conservative party would have lasted less than two years in government after 1979.
While the Opposition continue to run the debate of a bygone era, we are determined to focus our policies on the needs of all children in 24,000 schools and 4,000 secondary schools, on lifting standards and achievements for all. The Government have already significantly extended the diversity and the excellence of the education available to pupils throughout the country. There are now nearly 500 specialist schools and there will be 250 beacon schools by the end of this year. We have brought into the new voluntary-aided sector independent schools, Jewish, Muslim and Sikh schools. The excellence in cities programme, which affects London and five other major areas, has been spreading excellence for all children in all major urban centres. We have been ready to tackle failure wherever it exists. As a party, we are opposed to simply sitting on our hands, as the Opposition did when in government, rather than taking decisive action against failure.
The result of the failure is that children are denied a decent education in whichever school. That is why, through our actions, we have been able to reduce the time that it takes to turn around schools subject to special measures from 25 to 17 months during our time in office.
We can learn from the past and from existing policy, including the fresh start measures that have been taken over the past 18 months. Today, I can tell the House that we are inviting promoters from the voluntary, religious and business sectors to make proposals to take over weak or failing schools or to replace them with city academies where existing measures to overcome failure have been unsuccessful.
The promoters of academies will have to have plans for improving the education of all the pupils attending the school or schools. We will use existing legislative powers to establish the academies. They will be built and managed by partnerships involving the Government and the voluntary, Church or business sectors. Over the next year, we intend to launch at least one new academy and we will pilot others over the next few years.
We will look for imaginative proposals and new potential for such schools. The aim will always be to improve pupil performance by breaking the cycle of disadvantage and low expectation. Promoters will use different approaches. They will have to fit in with the framework of our admissions code, but they will be able to make imaginative proposals for the schools' management, governance, teaching and curriculum. We will expect at least one specialist focus and, as with other specialist schools, we will expect that focus to be shared with the wider community of schools in the area.
Yes, we will leave the decision on grammar schools to parents, but no, we will not leave failure where it exists in our communities. Unlike the Conservatives, we will take decisive action to change standards, not structures.
The confusion of Conservative Members is illustrated by the statements of their spokesperson in the Lords last night, who tabled an amendment, which did not succeed, to expand grammar schools. The hon. Member for Maidenhead (Mrs. May), in the Times Educational Supplement on 1 October 1999, said:
I don't get the impression that in areas where there are no grammar schools, there is a great groundswell of opinion in favour of introducing them.
There is not a groundswell in favour of further selection. There is a groundswell in favour of raising standards for all children, whichever school they go to. When they had the chance to prove what they could do with our education system, the Conservatives failed.
Our task is to ensure that we have equality of opportunity and fulfil the potential of all individual children and schools, not with rigid uniformity but with diversity designed to bring excellence. That is why I am willing to leave the decision on existing grammar schools to parents and why I am ensuring that all our attention and our policies and focus are on raising standards for all our children.

Mrs. May: At the weekend, the Secretary of State said that
arguments about selection are a past agenda
and that he was not "hunting grammar schools". Does he accept that those words will ring hollow with teachers and parents of children in grammar schools when they hear his intention to put their schools under threat once again?
Contrary to those statements at the weekend, the Secretary of State has confirmed that he is against the 11-plus. Does he not accept that there are many activists


campaigning against grammar schools who will see that as a sign, egging them on to continue their vendetta? What is his view on the use of any form of selection in education? Does he not accept that, by seeking to reverse the decision to abolish grammar school ballots, he is prolonging the uncertainty for the country's remaining grammar schools?
Does the Secretary of State realise that his decision will hit especially hard in areas where anti-grammar school campaigners have been active—such as in Barnet or at Latymer school in Enfield—where the grammar schools woke up this morning free from the threat of abolition but now face months of uncertainty until the Learning and Skills Bill has completed its passage through Parliament? If he is really interested in raising standards, why does not he remove the legislative death threat from the grammar schools and let them get on with the job of delivering excellence in education?
Will the Secretary of State confirm that the city academies that he announced to the press yesterday and has spoken of today will have freedom over their admissions policies and will be free to select by examination and/or interview? Will he also confirm that that would lead to further selection compared to the position in 1995? That was when he told the Labour party conference
no selection by examination or interview under a Labour Government.
At the weekend, the Secretary of State said that that statement was a joke. Does not he accept that it was not a joke then for parents, children or staff involved in grammar schools or for those who aspire to go to grammar schools, and it is not a joke today? Because the Secretary of State spins his message according to his audience, parents now know that they can have no faith in what he says. His claims at the weekend that he supported the grammar schools were simply another example of a Government who say one thing and do another.

Mr. Blunkett: I support excellence wherever it is. The idea that parents are a threat to grammar schools is an insult to parents who have the ballot. One cannot, as the hon. Lady and her colleagues did at the weekend, parade the glory of winning a ballot in Ripon, and then tell parents elsewhere that they should be denied the right to ballot. The hon. Lady cannot parade democracy when the result is in her favour and fear it when it is against her. Democracy involves winning and losing, and giving people the ability to make a choice is an essential part of democracy.
Had we taken action to remove the selective system in Ripon from the centre, there would have been an outcry demanding to know whether we had the legitimate right to second-guess the wish of parents. We did not do that; we gave parents the right to decide for themselves, as we will elsewhere.
Admissions policies will be within the code that we have laid down and on which the House voted. It is important that the action which is taken to improve and overcome failure deals with the children who are in that position. Anyone can improve a school if they reject all the pupils and then select them on an entirely different basis. That is why we have not engaged with the past agenda about structure or selection but concentrated all our efforts on raising standards.
For those whose memories stretch back as far as 1995—for journalists who have left school since then and for ageing, beloved politicians who have campaigned from that October day to this against what I said—of course "Watch my lips" was a parody. The difference is that after the level 2, level 3 and level 4 achievements in primary school, even an 11-year-old will know the difference between a parody and a joke about a speech. The parody was a parody of someone else's words, at which the conference laughed. The selection policy that was laid out in the manifesto and was contained in the document that was voted on that day was far from a joke, and that policy has been carried out faithfully for four and half years by me and my colleagues.

Mr. Gordon Marsden: Does not my right hon. Friend think that there is something very sad about the Conservatives' obsession with the grammar school ballot issue when 95 per cent. of our children are not educated in that system? Does he accept that when I speak to teachers, parents and children in Blackpool, they are concerned about issues such as the raising of standards, the success of the literacy and numeracy hours, the family learning centres and all the other initiatives that the Government have introduced, not the paranoid obsessions of the Conservatives?

Mr. Blunkett: Yes, I agree entirely with my hon. Friend. As more children reach level 4 at the age of 11, the anachronism of selection will become apparent to everybody.

Mr. Phil Willis: Does the Secretary of State agree that this is a sad occasion? Even though we have had a social exclusion report, "Bridging the Gap", which said that 9 per cent. of our young people leave school with no qualifications, no hope and no future, we spend our time on an obsession with the 4.5 per cent. of our youngsters who are in grammar schools. That is the real disgrace of what is happening today. Does the Secretary of State agree that, between 1979 and 1997 under the previous Administration, there was a net loss of 96 grammar schools? In fact, roughly one grammar school out of every three or four disappeared, without arousing much protest from Conservative Members,
However, does not the right hon. Gentleman agree that there are serious flaws in the current ballot arrangements? For example, one in four of those eligible to vote in Ripon had put their children in private schools. The children in the grammar school were denied a vote. No full explanation was ever offered of what would happen when the grammar school was abolished, and the local education authority was not allowed to put in place the organisational structure needed to pick up the pieces if the grammar school had been abolished.
Is the Secretary of State prepared to do more than overturn the Lords amendment? Should not he give serious consideration to the question of ballots, and to the idea that LEAs should be responsible for all schools and admission arrangements in their areas?

Mr. Blunkett: I certainly agree with the hon. Gentleman's first point about the number of grammar schools for which selection was abolished by the previous Government. I have travelled the country over the past


three years, but, as yet, have not come across any local campaign to bring back selection where it has been abolished.
I am not prepared to reopen consideration of the ballot question. When my hon. Friend the Member for Liverpool, Walton (Mr. Kilfoyle) attended the preparatory schools conference just before the last general election, he committed the Labour party to including those of primary age who were in the private school sector. He did so because he thought it right that parents with children in any school that had a direct feed into an area's grammar schools should be part of the total picture. It would be wrong to consider reopening that debate now. Those who are engaged in seeking the petition for a ballot should be allowed to progress under the existing rules.

Mr. Barry Sheerman: May I urge my right hon. Friend to continue his pursuit of a vision of diversity and excellence? He should not be distracted by a petty squabble whipped up by Conservative Members about the 4.5 per cent. of the population who are obsessed with grammar schools. Nor should he be distracted by the hypocrisy of Conservative Members, given that the previous Conservative Government got rid of one grammar school in three.
Will my right hon. Friend look carefully at diversity in the new academies and specialist schools, and ensure that they reach out to other schools in their areas? The city technology colleges were set up by the previous Government, but they failed to share their excellence and their mission, just as they failed to spread good teaching throughout their communities.
I welcome my right hon. Friend's new initiatives. He must make sure that they enthuse the rest of the teaching community and benefit every child in every school.

Mr. Blunkett: I agree with my hon. Friend. The provisions covering specialist schools specifically require that a third of the additional resources are used in work with neighbouring schools and the wider community. The original 15 technology colleges have been warmly welcomed and have sought actively to collaborate with schools and the wider community in their areas.

Mr. David Curry: If the Ripon parents had voted in favour of reorganisation, that decision would have been irrevocable, even though—because they were not consulted—they would not have known what form the reorganisation would have taken. However, the parents voted against reorganisation. Should not that decision also be irrevocable? Is it fair to schools that they should face another five years of uncertainty, and all the difficulties that that will cause for pupils, parents and teachers—and to the very head teachers whom the Secretary of State wants to fulfil a leadership role? Should not a decision reached by ballot decide a matter once and for all?

Mr. Blunkett: I take very seriously what the right hon. Gentleman says. There will be no threat to the school in the next five years. The outcome in Ripon was decisive, and people will take note of that. However, I would take his question more seriously if, under the balloting

arrangements for grant-maintained schools, there had been any provision for the next generation of parents and children to have any say in the status of those schools. The Conservative party turned parent against parent, teacher against teacher and school against school, and the parents of the generation of children about to enter the school, or whose children had an expectation of going to the school, had no chance of a say in its status.

Mr. Llew Smith: Does the Secretary of State accept that if all our children are to have the opportunity to develop all the skill, talent and creativity at their disposal, we need to abolish the 11-plus and grammar schools? Unless we have the courage to do that, our youngsters will still lose out, and many of them will be written off at the grand old age of 11.

Mr. Blunkett: There are parts of the country where the traditional 11-plus continues across the authority. That causes undoubted difficulties for secondary modern schools in achieving the kind of levels that they wish for their pupils. I commend them for the work that they are doing.
One thing was absolutely certain to us in October 1995. If we were elected, we would be diverted into spending all our time dealing with a very small number of schools in a very small number of areas, rather than dealing with standards and overcoming failure. That is why we took the decision to ensure that parents had the democratic right to decide and that Ministers did not spend all their time dealing with a handful of schools.

Mr. Graham Brady: First, I congratulate the Secretary of State on his city academies initiative. I hope that that will open the way to cities such as Manchester having a new tradition of grammar schools that will be open to all pupils, regardless of their parents' ability to pay.
Secondly, in relation to last night's amendment in the Lords, if the right hon. Gentleman insists on using the Government's Commons majority to override that decision, will he at least take another look at the ballot regulations? Will he remove the rigged ballot question that favours those who want to abolish the grammar schools, and ensure that the question refers instead to losing grammar schools? The Government should not use a rigged, fudged question to try to con parents so that they do not know what they are voting for.

Mr. Blunkett: That is a real insult to the parents in Ripon. They seemed well aware of what they were voting on. If the hon. Gentleman thinks that they were not, he is insulting their intelligence. He says that I rigged the ballot one way, while Lord Hattersley says that I rigged it the other way. Somewhere in between lies rational common sense and a reasonable way forward.
On the hon. Gentleman's first point, I very much welcome Manchester grammar school coming back into the public sector. My right hon. Friend the Member for Manchester, Gorton (Mr. Kaufman), who represents the constituency that the school is in, has rightly pointed out that there are thousands of deprived youngsters around that school who would benefit greatly if its admissions policy enabled them to enter, rather than those living in Cheshire and beyond.

Dr. Phyllis Starkey: I welcome my right hon. Friend's statement. I remind


him that, before the election, the people of my constituency voted three times in local ballots, at the behest of Tory-controlled Buckinghamshire county council which was attempting to impose a grammar school on the people of Milton Keynes. That grammar school was rejected three times by the people of Milton Keynes, yet Buckinghamshire county council persisted, with the Conservative Government, in trying to force that school on a community that did not want it. It was this Government who finally went along with the wishes of the local people. Does not that demonstrate the Conservative party's lack of commitment when it comes to listening to parents, except when they say what it wishes them to say?
Since that grammar school proposal was finally killed, the quality of education in Milton Keynes overall has improved because teachers, the local council and the Government can concentrate on providing an excellent education for all children without the divisiveness that was forced on them by the Tory county council.

Mr. Blunkett: Yes, I agree. That shows the sheer, naked opportunism of the amendment last night in the other place and of the private notice question this afternoon.

Sir Teddy Taylor: Everyone seems to be criticising the Secretary of State. Is he aware that in Southend-on-Sea we have no fear of democracy. We have a unique system, with 25 per cent. of our children going to grammar schools and getting opportunities that they would not otherwise have? We have gained the clear impression that the right hon. Gentleman has become more understanding and positive about our situation. Bearing in mind the fact that our unique 25 per cent. system produces results for all children in all areas and provides opportunity, is he willing to come to Southend to visit one of the schools? May I assure him that he would get a great welcome?

Mr. Blunkett: How could anyone refuse such a warm embrace? Certainly not my right hon. Friend the Minister for School Standards, who was in Southend last week to celebrate the education action zone. We wish those in Southend well, as we wish the top 25 per cent. well throughout the country in comprehensive schools who get five or more A to C grades.

Mr. Ben Chapman: Is my right hon. Friend aware that for proof that the Government are about standards rather than structures, he need look no further than the grammar schools on the Wirral, which provide

an excellent standard of education? Does he also understand that this is not a matter for exclusivity? Excellence can sit alongside excellence and does so in the Wirral in the form of, for example, Bebington and South Wirral high schools and Plessington Roman Catholic high school.

Mr. Blunkett: When my hon. Friend was elected, I was pleased to be in his constituency at Wirral grammar school for girls, particularly as it was when the right hon. Member for Bromley and Chislehurst (Mr. Forth), who was then an Education Minister, was trying to break in through the gate and was being ejected by the governors and staff. I repeat what I said then: we welcome excellence in those schools and their willingness to share what they are doing with the wider community.

Mr. Nick St. Aubyn: If the Secretary of State is serious about his project for city academies, will he accept my invitation to visit Guildford, where a private sector company founded by a city technology college is turning around a failing school, which our Conservative local education authority inherited from its Lib-Lab predecessor? Will he accept my regrets that it has taken him two years to understand what I have been telling him—that Conservative policies on failing and inner-city schools are the best for Guildford and for Britain?

Mr. Blunkett: I think that one has to have had different experiences to describe Guildford as the inner city, but nevertheless, as Kings Manor school progresses I will happily consider an invitation to visit it and find out what the staff, governors and non-teaching staff are doing. We are trying to tackle deep-rooted failure through diversity—it does not matter which authority, or its political complexion. However, when Surrey county council talks about failure, it must examine its own part in letting down schools such as Kings Manor. In that context, we will take action from the centre to ensure that no child is left in a failing school simply because the authority has failed to live up to expectations.

Charlotte Atkins: Does my right hon. Friend remember the Opposition pledge for a grammar school in every town? If that were to be the case, which of the two excellent comprehensive schools in Leek would they choose to be the secondary modern—Westwood high or Leek high?

Mr. Blunkett: I do not think that I had better second-guess that proposition. Fortunately, as I am in favour of supporting both those excellent comprehensive schools, I do not have to do so.

Inherited SERPS

The Secretary of State for Social Security (Mr. Alistair Darling): With permission, Madam Speaker, I would like to make a statement on entitlement to inherited state earnings-related pensions.
Fourteen years ago, the previous Conservative Government made a series of pensions policy changes, which they took through Parliament. One of those changes meant that, from this April, a husband or wife could inherit a maximum of one half of their spouse's SERPS entitlement.
The Department of Social Security published the correct information for about a year after the policy change. Pensions professionals also knew about the change. However, it is clear that, from early 1987 until 1996, DSS information leaflets were issued that did not refer to it. Furthermore, it is clear that wrong information was given to a number of people by some Benefits Agency staff during that period, and for some time thereafter. There is no doubt that, as a result, some people were misled, and so could have lost out.
The giving of wrong information by a Department is inexcusable. There is a clear responsibility to ensure that the information that Departments provide is accurate and complete. In this case, it was not. Furthermore, even the serious implications of giving the wrong information were not appreciated by the Department. That should never have happened. The previous Government should have sorted the matter out years ago.
Three reports are being published today. The first is the ombudsman's investigation of four sample complaints. The second is the Comptroller and Auditor General's report on what happened and on the action needed to prevent a repetition. The third is from the National Audit Office, which, at my request, also carried out a joint review, with internal audit, of the DSS management during the relevant period. Together, the reports provide a damning indictment of what happened over those years. All the reports will be available in the Library and Vote Office.
I intend to accept all the recommendations made by the NAO and the ombudsman. I can tell the House that I propose to go further in two respects. I shall, of course, respond to additional recommendations that might arise from any subsequent Public Accounts Committee or Select Committee investigation.
Before I turn to the steps I am taking to ensure that the problem does not happen again, I shall set out my proposals to provide redress for those who lost out.
First, certain groups cannot be affected in any way. They include people who would have retired before SERPS was introduced, single and divorced people; and those who have already been widowed.
Secondly, the policy change due to come into force this April will not come in until 6 October 2002—in two and half years' time. Because of that, anyone who is widowed before October 2002 will not be affected; their spouses will still be entitled to inherited SERPS under the current rules.
Thirdly, we shall also provide redress for those people who were wrongly informed and who, had they known the true position, might have made different arrangements.
Ministers have approached the matter in the following way. As a matter of principle, we believe that when someone loses out because they were given the wrong information by a Department, they are entitled to redress. In applying that principle, Ministers considered two options: first, deferral for up to 14 years; and secondly, a protected rights scheme.
We want to ensure that everyone who has been misled and has lost out gets redress. Deferral alone does not solve that problem. For example, let us consider a 65-year old today who was previously given the wrong information. If he dies, at, say, 80, his widow would still have lost out, but that is not what he was told would happen. We believe that she must have access to redress, but deferral will not provide a solution for that couple. Of course, someone who received the correct information, and spent money buying alternative arrangements, would feel aggrieved if it now turns out that he need not have done so.
However, a protected rights scheme does provide redress. None of those—including people already retired—who were misinformed, and who might have acted differently had they had the correct information need lose out. Therefore, I am setting up an inherited SERPS scheme, which will allow individuals to apply to have their current rights to inheritance of SERPS preserved. To be eligible to apply, applicants must be married; they must have paid national insurance contributions since 1978; and they must have been misinformed after 1986.
The NAO report identifies a number of criteria considered essential to the success of the scheme. I agree with those recommendations. The scheme will be well publicised. We will consult widely, and, crucially, we will not proceed with processing applications from the public until we are satisfied that they can be dealt with effectively.
Postponing implementation of the policy for everyone will also allow time for claims to the scheme to be made and processed. Because I do not consider that the Benefits Agency has the capacity to deal with that work, we will set up a separate unit specially for the purpose.
We will consult the appropriate interested bodies on the delivery of the scheme, including the ombudsman and the National Audit Office. We are also writing to a number of interested organisations today. In working out the details of the scheme, there is an obligation on the Government to ensure that we have a system to get money to those who have lost out, just as there is an obligation on individuals to tell us the truth.
I shall put before the House the full details of the inherited SERPS scheme, including what information we will require from those wishing to claim and the procedures that will be followed to scrutinise those claims. The NAO and the ombudsman will be fully involved in developing those procedures.
I am setting up a helpline for anyone who is concerned. Newspaper advertisements over the next few days will publicise its number: 0845 600 6116. It opens tomorrow at 7 am. I am also writing to all right hon. and hon. Members today, setting out our proposals.
I have set out my proposals to put matters right for those people affected, but I also want to prevent this problem from happening again. The crux of the problem was that there was no clear line of accountability in the Department for ensuring that the policy changes were


properly implemented or that information provided to the public was accurate and complete. That is symptomatic of a wider problem that I had already identified in the Department: it was not focused on the people whom it was meant to serve, who in this case were the pensioners of today and tomorrow.
I have already begun the process of change by focusing the Department on its key client groups: children, people of working age and pensioners. We need to give a better, dedicated service to pensioners. I am already setting up a modern service with better communications, so that pensioners can get information and advice on pensions and benefits available to them.
Today, I can announce the next step. I am bringing together policy and operational responsibility for pensions under a single organisation, distinct from the Benefits Agency. The new organisation will be solely focused on the needs of pensioners and pensions policy. It will deal with everything from policy development to front-line service delivery, and from changes in the law to changes in leaflets.
We also have a responsibility to provide clear information to the public. We have already tightened up the procedures for checking leaflets and guidance, but we need to do more. The public rely on Government information and they are entitled to be reassured that leaflets are accurate and comprehensive. I believe that all our leaflets should be subject to external independent audit. That should include consultation with others to ensure that all DSS leaflets are written in plain English. I have therefore asked the Social Security Advisory Committee, which is an independent statutory body, to do that.
This failure was deplorable. It should not have happened and it will cost a minimum of £2.5 billion to put right. How much more than that depends on the number of successful claims. We are deferring the change for two and a half years. We are making sure that people do not lose out because they got the wrong information. We are making root-and-branch reforms of the DSS, and, in future, DSS leaflets will be subject to external audit, so that people can rely on clear and accurate information.
The previous Conservative Government have to take responsibility for that mess, and I will take responsibility for clearing it up. I commend the statement to the House.

Mr. David Willetts: I thank the Secretary of State for his statement. I begin by making it clear that I make no attempt to evade responsibility. Everyone involved must take his or her share of responsibility. We accept the ombudsman's finding that there was maladministration. It took far too long to start giving people the advice that they are entitled to expect on the changes to SERPS provisions for widows. As a result of that failure to give the right advice, many people have not made the alternative arrangements that they otherwise would have made.
We regret what happened, and much of it happened on our watch. It should not have happened. There were some attempts to give the correct advice. I have the "Benefits Information" guide of May 1995, which makes the position clear. However, there are worrying cases of people still receiving the wrong advice as late as 1999. Indeed, the National Audit Office report, which makes damning reading, expresses concern that from November 1999 to

10 January 2000 contradictory lines were taken in official correspondence and in other sources of information about the legal position after 5 April 2000.
The NAO report—

Mr. Dale Campbell-Savours: Oh!

Mr. Willetts: This is a very important point about the advice that was given. I want the Secretary of State to promise that somewhere, someone in some benefit office is still not giving out-of-date information to people who are asking about their SERPS position.
The NAO report goes on to discuss the 3,500 written queries to Ministers where the Department should have provided an update on the situation of those who had expressed their concerns. It states:
We understand that this was considered but that a decision was made not to go ahead on the grounds that an announcement was expected before Christmas.
Was it the Secretary of State who decided not to respond to the 3,500 questions? Was it his colleague, the Minister of State? Was the decision made by officials? What is the Secretary of State's answer to that specific charge in the NAO report?
We accept that there is a serious problem of maladministration. However, will the Secretary of State accept—[Interruption.] As I have said, we very much regret that. I am asking the right hon. Gentleman to accept something in return, which is the policy that the Labour party opposed when it was in opposition and the Conservative Government's original policy, by which the Government now stand. Will he confirm that the Government have no plans to change the 50 per cent. formula for widows' entitlement to SERPS, which was introduced in the 1986 legislation? Indeed, will he confirm that they carry that formula through into the state second pension in legislation that is now before the House? Will he confirm also that the only change to widows' SERPS entitlements introduced by the Government has been a further cut in those entitlements as part of the Government's wider cuts in widows' benefits?
Many Members on both sides of the House have been approached by constituents who phoned the Department of Social Security to check on their future SERPS entitlement and were given the wrong advice. They will surely expect to be covered by the right hon. Gentleman's scheme. That is the crucial issue, but he has ducked it today. I remind him of the assurances of his ministerial colleagues during the past few months, both in another place and in this place, about compensation. In another place, the Under-Secretary of State, Baroness Hollis of Heigham, said:
There is a very real issue of proof … No record is kept of telephone calls, any more than a record is normally kept of conversations at the desk. Paper records are kept for about six months. But if someone asserted that he had received that misleading advice, I suspect it may well be the case that the Government would have to prove that he had not, rather than the contrary, because there would be no evidence to counterbalance it.—[Official Report, House of Lords, 6 July 1999; Vol. 603, c. 847.]
The then Minister with responsibility for pensions, who is now the Financial Secretary to the Treasury, went even further when he said:
If, for example, people have received advice by telephone, we shall take that into account. If what the hon. Gentleman is putting to me is that people may have received advice—for example, over


the telephone—on the basis of which they decided not to do something that they would otherwise have done, then they, too, will have a case for compensation.—[Official Report, 24 June 1999; Vol. 333, c. 1313.]
I ask the Secretary of State to promise not to breach the undertakings which Ministers in his Department have already given to the House and to another place. If people say that they asked for advice and they then did nothing because of the advice that they received, does the right hon. Gentleman accept that as proof enough?
Ministers have admitted that the DSS will not have proof of the advice given because its records are destroyed after six months. Therefore, the Secretary of State's scheme, the details of which we await, must not ask pensioners to do the impossible.
The statement has been delayed from before Christmas—we know from the NAO when it was originally due to be made—because the Secretary of State has been fighting an unsuccessful battle with the Treasury on precisely that point. That is why it is so important that the right hon. Gentleman sticks to the promises that were made by his colleagues.
Does not the approach set out today contrast strikingly with that adopted by Ministers to private personal pensions? Private pension providers were presumed guilty unless they could prove that they were innocent; now, the Government intend to regulate themselves far more leniently than they have regulated others.
The DSS is acquiring an unenviable record for getting things wrong in the first place, which is bad enough, and then compounding the problem by making a mess of getting things right. We ask for a simple assurance from the Secretary of State that the widows and the people planning for their pension who have followed today's announcement will not be let down because of another DSS mess.

Mr. Darling: I am sorry that the Opposition spokesman has struck such a tone, because the matter is extremely serious. Many people in this country have been caused great distress by something which, as he acknowledges, happened largely during the period for which Conservative Ministers were responsible.
The hon. Gentleman made several points that I shall answer specifically. He referred to the mis-selling of personal private pensions, but I can tell the House what that problem has in common with the inherited SERPS problem: the Tories did nothing about either. Twenty Tory Ministers, including the Leader of the Opposition and the shadow Chancellor, served in the DSS during the period in which the problems originated, but they did nothing about them. We are now sorting things out and providing to those who lost out the same measure of redress as we ask the private sector to provide to those who were mis-sold pensions.
The hon. Gentleman asked about the changes being made through the state second pension. I will happily deal with that matter at great length when the Child Support, Pensions and Social Security Bill is reported to the House. Suffice it to say that, because of our reforms, the state second pension extends the rights that people get under SERPS.
The hon. Gentleman's central point is an important matter of concern to all hon. Members: the question of what standards are required and what the public require.

Let me repeat that the guiding principle is that people who have lost out will get redress. We shall work out the details of the scheme in consultation with the NAO and the ombudsman; that scheme will be laid before the House so that all hon. Members will have an opportunity to comment on it.
We have a clear obligation to establish a system that provides redress, just as there is an obligation on individuals to tell us the truth about what happened. People will be required to give us information on how they were misled when they make a claim, and we shall, of course, ask them questions about that when we process the claim. However, if there is no documentary evidence, it will be for the Department to challenge or disprove the claim. I hope that that makes the position absolutely clear. We recognise the difficulties caused by the fact that many people will not have documentary evidence, and we are determined to be fair to the people who have lost out.
Finally, I made it clear in my statement that I accept full responsibility for anything that goes on during the course of this Government in the Department for which I am responsible. The mess was created by the Conservatives when they were in power, but I take full responsibility, down to the last word and detail of the scheme, for trying to sort out the mess for the benefit of many pensioners.

Mr. Frank Field: I thank my right hon. Friend for his statement. Does he agree that it is important that we make a distinction between the gang opposite and their incompetence and the way in which we shall respond to their incompetence? Does he accept that, because there is such chaos in the Department that he must now set up a separate unit to deal with the issue, nobody outside will accept the word of the Department or that unit against the word of our constituents who say that they asked for advice, that they were given bad advice and that they acted accordingly?

Mr. Darling: No, I do not agree with my right hon. Friend on that point. The basic problem with the Department of Social Security over the years is that it did not have a clear enough focus on its client groups—children, people of working age and pensioners. The Benefits Agency in particular, which is the organisation under discussion, has a wide focus because of the varied needs of all the types of people who come through its doors.
In a new organisation created to deal solely with pensions and pensioners, the staff will be totally focused on pensioners' needs. As my right hon. Friend knows, we have some excellent staff in the Department of Social Security, who sometimes have to work with policies introduced by politicians which are not easy to implement. Nothing in my remarks was intended as criticism of the general quality of our staff.
We must make sure that we have a scheme in place that is workable and fair, and that provides redress for the people who lost out. We also need to make sure that the DSS and its agencies are reorganised to be better focused on the people whom they are meant to serve. That is what I am determined to see through.

Mr. Steve Webb: I am afraid that the Government's response is wholly inadequate, not because


of what it does for the people who were actively misled, but because of what it does not do for the far larger number of people who were simply never told.
Does the Secretary of State accept that the pensioners who ring the Department and write letters are atypical, and that most pensioners do not ring up and do not go to get leaflets—they just carry on. They assume that if their rights are to be slashed, someone will tell them.
Can the Secretary of State say whether he told pensioners that their rights would be slashed in good time for them to do something about it? If he and his predecessors did not do that, how can he justify going ahead with the cuts now—the Tory cuts that he would have opposed?
The delay until October 2002 is a fig leaf. Can the Secretary of State confirm that his own statement proves that the deferral to 2002 is an irrelevance to most pensioners? For a younger pensioner, as long as her husband lives for two years now, the deferral is irrelevant. Can the right hon. Gentleman confirm that people who have reached pension age, provided that their husbands survive a few more years, will face the full cut and may never have been told about it?
Given the healthy state of the national insurance fund and a £3 billion surplus of revenue over expenditure next year alone, could not the right hon. Gentleman have persuaded his former friends in the Treasury to allocate that to Britain's widows? Is it not time that the Secretary of State and his colleagues stopped being the Treasury's poodles and started standing up for pensioners?

Mr. Darling: The hon. Gentleman has an exceedingly short memory. With regard to the national insurance surplus, he spent that two debates ago. I forget what he spent it on—some other pension provision—so, if he had had his way, the national insurance surplus would have been spent already. It is not available a second time round.
I said that the hon. Gentleman had a short memory. Only yesterday, he tabled an early-day motion calling on us to provide compensation for those pensioners. We are providing a scheme for redress for pensioners. Only 24 hours later, he has forgotten that that is what he asked for.
Let us go back to first principles. The principle must be that if the Government give people the wrong information, they must face the consequences and provide them with redress. That is precisely what we are doing. We are doing so whether people are still working or have already retired. If they received the wrong information, they will all be eligible to receive redress.
The hon. Gentleman must remember that there are many people now working and many who have retired who did know about the changes and made alternative provision, for which they had to pay. He would say that they need not have spent all that money. If he is saying that he is in favour of deferral, he must bear in mind the fact that I said in my statement—the hon. Gentleman nods. That is today's policy, so I shall deal with it. Now he shakes his head. That policy lasted five seconds.
Through deferral, the problem is merely postponed. That means that the widow of a man who dies in 10 or 14 years would still lose out. Unlike the Liberals, who do not have to face any of these problems—it is all pretty theoretical, as far as they are concerned—we are facing up

to a real problem that we inherited. Far too many people received the wrong advice, and we are giving them redress.
The hon. Gentleman asked why we had deferred the policy to 2002. That is to ensure that we can get the scheme under way and provide redress for the pensioners about whom we should all be concerned.

Several hon. Members: rose—

Madam Speaker: Order. I should now like short questions. Several hon. Members want to ask questions, and I want to safeguard the business of the House for the rest of the day. I should also like brisk answers from the Secretary of State.

Mr. David Winnick: If we were considering local government maladministration, a surcharge would have been imposed on those responsible for the problems. Those responsible for the problems that we are considering are getting away scot free.
I welcome the postponement in implementing the policy to 2002. Putting aside the way in which the hon. Member for Northavon (Mr. Webb) made his point, would it be possible for the policy to be reconsidered? Many of us believe that the Tories were wrong to do what they did in the first place.

Mr. Darling: The policy change was announced 14 years ago. It is not possible to turn the clock back to the world of 1986. Many people have made provision in good faith as a result of the law since 1986. If any Government turn the clock back, they will create a new group of losers. Most people would find that unacceptable.

Sir Norman Fowler: I thank the Secretary of State for his courtesy in informing me about the statement in advance. I have had the opportunity of reading only the Parliamentary Commissioner's report. I support the Secretary of State's statement, and I take responsibility for my period of office from 1981–87.
On the parliamentary process, will the Secretary of State confirm that the changes were set out in a Government White Paper in December 1985, that they were outlined in a statement that I made to the House on 16 December 1985, and that they were fully debated in lengthy Committee proceedings in 1986? In accepting responsibility, will the Secretary of State confirm that the parliamentary process was openly followed?
Will the Secretary of State also confirm that, while the Government are deferring the change that I proposed in 1986, they are continuing with the basic policy that I introduced then? My hon. Friend the Member for Havant (Mr. Willetts) pressed the Secretary of State to confirm that.

Mr. Darling: I am grateful to the right hon. Gentleman for his first comment. I wrote to all my predecessors, including the former Prime Minister, who was also a Minister in the former Department of Health and Social Security, because I believed that it was right to do so.
The right hon. Gentleman would not have seen the National Audit Office report or the ombudsman's report because their publication is not a matter for me. The reports are rightly made directly to the House.
There was a lot of publicity about the changes when they were made. The first leaflet that the Department of Health and Social Security produced was right. I tried to explain to the hon. Member for Northavon (Mr. Webb) that many people knew about the changes and planned accordingly. Paragraph 1.12 of the National Audit Office report states that pension professionals, who advise people, also knew about the changes. That is our problem. Some people knew about them and acted accordingly, but others who picked up leaflets published by the DHSS and the BA did not know.
I am addressing the fundamental problem in the Department that was not tackled during the Conservative years: making sure that the correct information is issued and that our staff know the policy.

Mr. Terry Rooney: I welcome my right hon. Friend's statement. Given NIRS2 and other problems, are there any more ticking time bombs, which cost billions of pounds, left by the previous Administration? How long does my right hon. Friend envisage that it will take to settle claims once they are made? I welcome the new pensions department. Can we at last get rid of the question on the income support claim form for pensioners that asks whether they are pregnant?

Mr. Darling: On the latter point, I certainly hope so. Indeed, the steps that I have announced this afternoon whereby all DSS leaflets will be externally audited will improve matters. There are two reasons for that: they need to be right and they need to be readable. I suppose that it is conceivable—to coin a phrase—that a pensioner could be pregnant, but probably unlikely. However, I shall certainly consider that.
My hon. Friend asks whether there are any more ticking time bombs. When the problem came to light—I was first made aware of it at the end of 1998—I asked the Department to read all the leaflets that are now being produced to ensure that they are accurate and up to date. I am as satisfied as I can be that that is the case, but I do not suppose that I am any different from any of my predecessors as Secretary of State for Social Security in that I spend rather more of my day than I would like dealing with time bombs that may not be ticking, but look like they might tick in future.

Mr. Willetts: Stakeholders.

Mr. Darling: I was thinking of some of the other problems that we inherited—NIRS2, the benefit payment card and the mis-selling of SERPS. I have a long list of messes to clear up as a result of the Tory Government.

Mr. David Davis: I welcome the Secretary of State's deferment of the change in the SERPS scheme and his undertaking to enact the National Audit Office recommendations and any subsequent Public Accounts Committee recommendations, but he will be aware that the ombudsman and the NAO expressed reservations in their reports about the second stage—the protected rights compensation. Can he answer three points? Can he confirm that the costing for his proposed scheme assumes only one third take-up among

SERPS holders, which is an important measure? Will he give an undertaking that not only will the scheme be laid before the House, but that we shall have a debate on the Floor of the House—not in a Statutory Instrument Committee—after the ombudsman has commented on it? After the scheme has been operating for a year, but before the two and a half years are up, can we have a review, perhaps by the NAO? We must look to see whether justice has been done to all those people who have been misled over the years.

Mr. Darling: The right hon. Gentleman raises three points. The NAO and the ombudsman properly said that the redress provided is a matter for Parliament, not them. They have both said that they would like to comment on it and I made it very clear in my statement that I want them to do so. I shall listen to any recommendations that they want to make because it is important to take on board what the Department's external auditor—which is what the NAO is—and the ombudsman have to say.
On costings, I said earlier that the minimum cost is £2.5 billion. It could be more, depending on the number of people who tell us that they were misled. We shall not know the position for some time, but my guess is that, during the year, especially with the helpline opening, we shall get a better feel for exactly how many people were misled. The scheme has to be confirmed by the House so that it is debatable. That is a matter for the usual channels.
Finally, we would clearly want to review the scheme continuously. I shall reflect on what the right hon. Gentleman has said and I am not giving him any undertakings. I hope that we are all trying to do the best that we can for those people, and Members—Front-Bench or otherwise—should try to make sure that we have a scheme that works and put right what went very wrong for a large number of people.

Mr. Barry Gardiner: The Secretary of State will be aware that the NAO report states:
even though the absence was noted—
that is the absence of the information—
when a draft was circulated within the then Department of Health and Social Security
in 1987, when a leaflet was being prepared. Obviously, that statement was made on the basis of evidence. What is the evidence that that absence was noted? Does it take the form of a memo? If so, from and to whom was it sent? Does it take the form of minutes of meeting? If so, who was present at that meeting, who drafted the minutes and to whom were they circulated? It is fundamental that we find out who knew that the draft leaflet did not contain the appropriate information.

Mr. Darling: Perhaps I should explain to the House and my hon. Friend that the NAO was asked to consider these matters because it can read all relevant papers, including those given to Ministers in the previous Government, and the advice. He will know that, by convention and quite rightly, I cannot see the advice given to Conservative Ministers, but the NAO and the ombudsman did see it. However, they do not say that such and such information was in a minute sent to the Secretary of State.
I do not know where the information came from, because the NAO produced the report, but I can say that the NAO and the ombudsman reached similar


conclusions. They did not believe that any deliberate attempt had been made to stop the information from being made public; they concluded that, because of the byzantine structure of the Department at the time—we are now putting that right—too many people had an interest in preparing the leaflets, and no one person was there to take responsibility for ensuring that they were correct and up to date.
I am now remedying the problem. Three weeks ago, I announced major management changes in the Department to streamline it and make it more effective, and today I am going a step further with the new pensions organisation. As for who wrote what and when, we asked the NAO to investigate because it is external to the Department and acts without fear or favour. I am happy to accept its recommendations, but I cannot see all the papers that may have been circulated in 1987.

Miss Julie Kirkbride: I, too, thank the Secretary of State for making it clear which pensioners will have preserved rights. Many of my constituents are concerned about the matter.
It is obvious that those who have written documentary evidence that they were misled about their entitlement will have a bang-to-rights case. However, is the right hon. Gentleman saying that merely stating that they had discussed the matter with a benefits officer, or had discussed it on the telephone—presumably the DSS could not disprove that, as it does not keep records for very long—would entitle my constituents to preserved rights?

Mr. Darling: As I said a moment ago, we shall present to the House proposals giving details of the procedures that people will have to follow, and the scrutiny that the Department will conduct to ensure that claims are well founded. All that will be clearly set out, so that people will know exactly where they stand.

Mr. Mark Todd: The scheme that my right hon. Friend has described may well deal with those who have been misinformed, but I am less sure that it deals with those who have not been informed of the changes made in 1986. At any point, were those who might have been affected posted clear information by the previous Government explaining the implications of the change?

Mr. Darling: I do not think that any Government have written routinely to all citizens telling them about changes they have made to any law, let alone this one. When my hon. Friend thinks about it, he will realise that that would be a massive undertaking.
Let me return my hon. Friend to first principles. In the Government or the private sector, when someone does something as a result of which someone else loses out because they could not make arrangements, redress must be provided, and that is what we are doing. We are providing redress on the ground that some people went to the Department and were given the wrong information. That is the principle, but my hon. Friend suggests that we should go beyond it. I am saying that, when the Government give wrong information, they clearly have a responsibility to provide redress.

Mr. David Rendel: May I draw the Secretary of State's attention to two comments in the

NAO report—which I am happy to have helped to instigate by requesting such material from the Chairman of the Public Accounts Committee? First, the figures for the preserved rights scheme suggest that, even if only a third of claims are met, the total cost may be £8.2 billion. The report says that that implies a great risk, in that, if all the claims are met, the cost could be more than £20 billion.
Secondly—this, surely, is a critical aspect of the preserved rights scheme—how will the Secretary of State ensure that everyone who might be eligible applies? Will he write to everyone who might be eligible, just as he demanded that people should be written to when the private pension mis-selling scandal arose? Will he also confirm that there will be no time limit? Will someone who is widowed in 2005, and has not at that point had the rights preserved, still have a chance to do so?

Mr. Darling: If the hon. Gentleman has read the reports from the NAO and the ombudsman, he will have seen that both ask that we spend some time doing a number of things to ensure that the scheme works. One is to discuss the publicity with them. The Government are determined to ensure that the scheme gets the widest possible publicity, including advertising. We will consult the NAO, the ombudsman and other interested bodies to find out what else we need to do.
The second thing comes back to a familiar theme. It is important to remember what the principle is: where the Department has given the wrong information, we provide people with redress. It follows, therefore, that we need to do everything that we possibly can to draw that to the public's attention.

Mr. Keith Darvill: I thank my right hon. Friend for his statement. It is clearly another mess created by the Conservative party, which the Government are sorting out.
May I ask one or two practical questions? Do those constituents of ours who have already written to complain need to submit a formal application? Is there a time by which those applications need to be submitted? Indeed, will there be a limitation period for submitting applications for claims by constituents generally?

Mr. Darling: About 3,000 people have written to the Department or contacted it. We have a note of their names and addresses. We will write to them in the next few days. It will be made clear to them and, indeed, to the population at large that, once the scheme is ready to receive claims, there will be further advertising telling people where to write, what information to include and how we intend to process it. Included in that will be the dates by which we want to get the applications in.

Mr. Paul Burstow: Can the Secretary of State confirm that those people who did not know that the Government had made changes in 1986 and who at no point during the past 14 years knew that the changes had been made will effectively be excluded from the preserved rights scheme? By dint of not knowing, they did not pick up the telephone, look at the leaflet or write a letter. Many people outside the House will find it hard to understand why they are being excluded from his scheme.

Mr. Darling: If the hon. Gentleman thinks about it, the logic of what he has said is that, if anyone anywhere were


to say that they did not know about any change in the law, they could say to the Government, "You had better scrap the law." Even for the Liberal Democrats, that is pushing matters. We are saying that, where people were given the wrong information and, because of that, lost the opportunity to do something differently, we will provide them with redress. That is the right thing to do in principle. It is what we would require of the private sector. It is the right thing for the public sector to do.

Angela Smith: I welcome my right hon. Friend's statement, which obviously concentrated on the practical and financial aspects, but does he accept that, when people retire, or make provision for their spouse after their death, one of the things that they need most in life is security and certainty? The catalogue of Conservative horrors has created greater fear, worry and uncertainty for many people. Many who come to our surgeries are very upset and worried. Does he share my frustration that, although we have heard the Conservative party say that it accepts responsibility, it has at no stage said sorry?

Mr. Darling: On the latter point, that is something that most of us are well used to, so perhaps we are not as sensitive to it as others, but it is better to concentrate on what we will do to put matters right. I make just two points. First, we are making changes to SERPS and the state second pension that will mean that people who are on low pay—say, about £6,000 a year—will get about £54 a week through SERPS, instead of £14 a week, which is a big change.
Secondly, shortly—over the next few years—we will be able to provide everyone in this country with an annual pension statement, which will tell them exactly how much they are retiring on. That will be one of the single biggest ways in which to give people reassurance. They will be able to see in black and white what they are getting from the state, from their occupational or stakeholder pension. If any future Government come along who are like the last lot over there and start slashing things, privatising basic state pensions, or whatever the latest policy is, people will know about it very soon.

Mr. David Heath: Am I right in thinking that the right hon. Gentleman plans to do something about the sins of commission but not the sins of omission? He will do something about actively misleading, but not about failing to give proper advice. Will he now give an answer to the hon. Member for Bromsgrove (Miss Kirkbride)? Is it correct that that assertion, in the absence of any contrary proof from the Department, will be sufficient evidence for the scheme? What will be the position of someone who can prove that they were misled but second hand—in other words not directly from the Department but from some intermediary who has taken advice from the Department?

Mr. Darling: I have just told the House that the details of the scheme will be worked out after consultation and will come before the House. I have also made it clear that all claims will be scrutinised. As I said in my reply to the hon. Member for Havant (Mr. Willetts), the Department

will have to challenge any information. If people think that they have a claim, they should come forward and we will look at it and scrutinise it in the normal way.

Mr. John Cryer: Does my right hon. Friend accept that, however outrageous the behaviour of the Conservative party when in government, it was entirely consistent with the culture of fraud and mis-selling in the pensions industry which I believe that the Conservatives deliberately engineered during the 1980s? Will my right hon. Friend consider that there will be some problems with pensioners proving that they were misinformed or misled? My right hon. Friend mentioned the guidelines. How soon will they be produced? What definitive criteria will they contain and to what extent will it be a question of individual social security officers adjudicating on individual cases?

Mr. Darling: On the latter point, I want to avoid creating a further problem by producing guidelines that are so general that we get into a host of other problems. The rules and regulations under which the inherited SERPS schemes will work will be as strict as possible so that all our staff know how they operate. I repeat that we want to discuss the guidelines with the NAO and the ombudsman, as they have requested, so that we get them right. Also, we are writing today to many organisations, such as Help the Aged and Age Concern, to ensure that the scheme is operated fairly so that we can put right the problems that so many people face. We will make every effort to ensure that the guidelines are right. Getting them right is rather more important than trying to rush forward with rules and regulations that do not work. I want to take time to get it right because that is precisely what the ombudsman and the NAO are asking us to do.

Kali Mountford: Does my right hon. Friend agree that acceptance and regret do not add up to sorry?
My right hon. Friend's announcement about the new organisation for pensioners is a significant move. Will that include all work for pensioners such as state pensions, SERPS, second state pensions and minimum income guarantee? How soon will it be set up and will it be able to liaise with other Departments and organisations such as the national health service and local government so that benefits work together properly for pensioners and so that security and service really start to mean something?

Mr. Darling: The pensions organisation will be responsible for pensions and pensions policy operations. It will also be responsible for the benefits that go to older people, including the minimum income guarantee. I will have something further to say about that in the not too distant future.

Mr. Eric Pickles: Does the Secretary of State realise that his reply to the hon. Member for Somerton and Frome (Mr. Heath) is inconsistent with his earlier statement that he will accept the ombudsman's report in full? He told the hon. Gentleman that applications would be challenged in the normal way. On page 13 of the ombudsman's report, paragraph 32 says that the normal burden of proof should be changed round and that the burden of proof must


rest with the Department. Let me be clear: if an uncorroborated telephone call is made, will it be up to the Department to prove that it did not take place?

Mr. Darling: Let me repeat what I said when I answered the hon. Member for Havant and other hon. Members. We will set out in the regulations what information is required and what questions people will be asked when the claim is processed. I said that, where there is no documentary evidence, it will be for the Department to challenge or disprove the claim.

Points of Order

Mr. Ken Maginnis: On a point of order, Madam Speaker. The matter relates to the hon. Member for Hull, North (Mr. McNamara) and me. I am conscious that you are jealous of the protocol maintaining that, when a matter is referred to you for consideration, an hon. Member should not discuss that matter either in the media or outside the House until you have delivered your ruling on it. I assume that the same courtesy and protocol should be applied in the matter of findings by the Parliamentary Commissioner for Standards.
I should like to draw your attention to the fact that I was never notified that the hon. Member for Hull, North would be raising an issue—in relation to my interests, which were registered—to cast doubts on my integrity, and that he would do so publicly, in the media, prior to an adjudication. I should add that the Commissioner found that I had no case to answer.
May I also ask you to adjudicate on whether an hon. Member who asks—at a cost of more than £52,000, and in a comparatively short period—153 parliamentary questions, which amount to a denigrating campaign against the Royal Ulster Constabulary, is infringing the privileges of the House?

Mr. Kevin McNamara: Further to that point of order, Madam Speaker. I listened with interest to what the hon. Member for Fermanagh and South Tyrone (Mr. Maginnis) had to say. It was interesting that the questions to which he referred—which were tabled to the Ministry of Defence—revealed that rifles used on Bloody Sunday were destroyed when they were under the control of the Ministry of Defence. I should have thought that they would have been vital evidence in the Bloody Sunday inquiry.
It would also have revealed that the Police Federation of Northern Ireland used a Government website to state its opposition to the Patten committee report. That matter concerns the spending of money.
It would also have revealed that the questions that I was tabling concerned police action, or lack of action, in the killing of Mr. Hamill—

Madam Speaker: Order. May I inquire how this information concerns me? I am prepared to deal with the original point of order, but how does that information concern me?

Mr. McNamara: The point that I am making is that the hon. Member for Fermanagh and South Tyrone tabled a question that cast aspersions on the cost of the questions that I had tabled and on my activities as a Member of Parliament, in tabling those questions to check the Executive. I thought that that was in my power. That is my response to the hon. Gentleman's latter point.
As for the hon. Gentleman's first point, he did not inform me that he would table a question about me. It is common practice for hon. Members, particularly Opposition Members, to say that they have referred matters to the Registrar. I should have thought that such referrals are a matter of public knowledge.
I am still in correspondence with the Registrar, on the basis of her reply. I think that it is proper, under the rules of the House, to say that registered interests must be declared when a question is tabled, and that a man who receives from the Police Federation of Northern Ireland money, to the extent of £4,000 annually, to help him in his research, and who is a former B special—

Madam Speaker: Order. I think that I should now give a ruling on the matter.
Let me deal, first, with the latter point, raised by the hon. Member for Hull, North (Mr. McNamara), on the number of parliamentary questions that are tabled by hon. Members. I cannot give a ruling on that matter. I have no responsibility whatsoever to restrict such questions. I am sure, however, that hon. Members will use their discretion in the matter, knowing full well the cost of such questions.
I am very pleased that the hon. Member for Fermanagh and South Tyrone (Mr. Maginnis) raised the original point of order, as it dealt with a matter that has troubled me very considerably. There is nothing in the rules of the House that prevent an hon. Member who complains to the Parliamentary Commissioner about a colleague from informing the media. However, I have to say that I regard such actions as discourteous, unjust and unfair. In particular, it can give credence to accusations that subsequently turn out to be unfounded, by which time the damage has been done and cannot be repaired.
I hope very much that all right hon. and hon. Members in all parts of the House will pay attention to the ruling that I have just given, which is a very considered one.

Mr. McNamara: In view of what you have just said, Madam Speaker, all my future actions will follow your ruling, although Opposition Members have not always done so.

Madam Speaker: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman, who is a good and long-standing Member of the House.

Angela Smith: On a point of order, Madam Speaker. During Prime Minister's Question Time, you and

other right hon. and hon. Members heard someone heckling my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister in unparliamentary language and you seemed concerned when no hon. Member admitted using that unparliamentary language. Have you taken the matter further, and do you intend to ask the Leader of the Opposition to take it up with his Back Benchers and report to you who is responsible?

Mr. Stephen Pound: Further to that point of order, Madam Speaker. As many of us were disgusted and rather saddened by the use of the unparliamentary and inaccurate epithet that was hurled from the Opposition Benches, have you received any representation on the subject from the hon. and gallant Member for Blaby (Mr. Robathan)?

Madam Speaker: Let me reply to the hon. Member for Basildon (Angela Smith). I shall not take the course of action that she suggests and ask the Leader of the Opposition to take up the matter. This afternoon, the Opposition Benches were particularly crowded and noisy, and I clearly heard an unparliamentary word. I did not know which hon. Member uttered that word. Had I done so, I would have immediately asked him to withdraw it. When I attempted to find the hon. Member responsible, as the House saw, no one admitted using that word. However, I have noted what the hon. Lady said and I have some indication of the area—I shall leave it at that—from which the word was uttered.

BILL PRESENTED

CRIMINAL JUSTICE AND COURT SERVICES

Mr. Secretary Straw, supported by the Prime Minister, Mr. Secretary Prescott, Mr. Secretary Cook, Mr. Secretary Blunkett, Jane Kennedy and Mr. Paul Boateng, presented a Bill to establish a National Probation Service for England and Wales and a Children and Family Court Advisory and Support Service; to make further provision for the protection of children; to make further provision about dealing with persons suspected of, charged with or convicted of offences; to amend the law relating to access to information held under Part III of the Road Traffic Act 1988; and for connected purposes: And the same was read the First time; and ordered to be read a Second time tomorrow, and to be printed [Bill 91].

Broadcasting of Recorded Music in Public Places

Mr. Robert Key: I beg to move,
That leave be given to bring in a Bill to prohibit the broadcasting of recorded music in certain public places.
First, as a good Conservative, may I say how much I dislike regulations in principle. However, we spen our time in this place regulating human behaviour in one way or another—as we have just seen. I dislike imposing my prejudices, my preferences and my will on other people, but I also dislike them imposing theirs on me. However, politics is not just the art of the possible; it is the art of getting the balance right. It is precisely because I believe that in this case the balance has swung too far in the wrong direction that I seek to introduce this Bill.
The Bill is not anti-music. Nor is it anti-recorded music, though it is certainly pro-live music. I am passionate about music. Music has always been of huge importance to me, both as a listener and as a singer. I have been privileged to sing with some of the great choirs of this country including the Academy of St. Martin in the Fields and the Monteverdi Choir. I must have sung in hundreds of live performances with them and made a fair number of recordings.
My taste may not be your taste, Madam Speaker, and I would not wish to impose it on you. Music is an intensely personal thing. Much as I love Mozart and Handel, there are moments when I crave Ella Fitzgerald, Queen or, just maybe, All Saints.
Piped music, muzak or canned music is increasingly disliked and despised. All music is devalued if it is treated as acoustic wallpaper. People mind if they are trapped with no chance of escape from someone else's choice of music on a plane, in a bus, on a train, in a restaurant or pub, during otherwise decent television programmes, while held in a queue on a telephone or while sitting worrying in a doctor's surgery or a hospital.
The Bill would exclude the playing of piped music in a very limited number of public places. Places such as pubs, shops, restaurants and hotels would not be affected, because there is a choice—we can always walk away—but the Bill would exclude the playing of piped music in the public parts of hospitals, doctors' surgeries, public swimming pools, bus and railway stations, airports and public highways.
Perhaps the ultimate affront is the playing of piped music in the streets, as is done in many French towns, especially on market days. There have been one or two attempts to do that here. I notice that, for example, Harvey Nichols in Knightsbridge jingles into the street at Christmas time. Busking is entirely different, although I draw the line at amplified busking in the street.
People might be surprised to hear that muzak is invading our hospitals. I have seen anguished letters from patients in Grimsby hospital; Nelson hospital, Merton; St. Richard's hospital, Chichester; and the Royal eye hospital in Kingston.
A patient from Barnstead had day surgery on his hand last year. In the ward where he was prepared a radio was playing loudly. He was delayed in going in for the operation because his blood pressure was too high. He said that he would be far calmer if the wretched machine

were turned off. The nurse explained that she did not like the radio herself, but that she was not responsible for it. He complained to the hospital trust, but got the usual big organisation blather saying that most people liked it.
What are the facts? Gatwick airport carried out a survey of travellers' attitudes to piped music. Of the 68,077 who replied, 43 per cent. said that they disliked piped music, 34 per cent. said that they liked it and 23 per cent. had no opinion. Gatwick airport has since discontinued playing such music.
A November 1998 NOP poll that showed that 34 per cent. disliked piped music and only 30 per cent. liked it. Among those aged over 45, a majority hated it, and, even among young people, one in five disliked it. In January 1997, a poll for The Sunday Times asked people what single thing they most detested about modern life. Third in the list of most hated things was piped music. The first two were other forms of noise.
All unwanted noise raises the blood pressure and depresses the immune system. A survey of blood donors at Nottingham University medical school in January 1995 found that playing piped music made blood donors more nervous before giving blood and more depressed afterwards. The NOP poll of 1998 found that among deaf people—nearly one in five of the population have hearing problems—86 per cent. disliked piped music. The Royal National Institute for Deaf People now backs a campaign against piped music.
Blind people, who rely on background sounds to help to find their way around, find piped music upsetting. Musicians of all sorts loathe piped music because they find acoustic wallpaper offensive. Of course, piped music does not come free. It is an extra that has to be paid for with every meal, drink, book, ticket and piece of clothing. Incidentally, there is no objective evidence that customers in shops either like piped music or spend more because of it. In fact, Tesco, the John Lewis Partnership—including Waitrose—Sainsbury's and the Wetherspoon pub chain have all decided not to install it.
A guide to muzak-free pubs, "The Quiet Pint", has been produced by the campaign for freedom from piped music, known as Pipedown, which has its headquarters in my constituency. It is supported by a galaxy of stars. The patrons of Pipedown include Alfred Brendel, Tom Conti, Antonia Fraser, Stephen Fry, Lesley Garrett, John Humphrys, Julian Lloyd Webber, Joanna Lumley, Peter Maxwell Davies, George Melly, Spike Milligan, Simon Rattle, Prunella Scales and many others.
Piped music is pollution: a pollution from which there is no escape. The Chartered Institute of Environmental Health reports that noise complaints rose from 200 per million of population in 1971 to 5,051 per million in 1997. The commonest type of offending noise is not pneumatic drills, cars or aircraft but music.
Noise remains the least recognised form of pollution. Sufferers from noise pollution—the victims—are inherently quiet people who do not like protesting. Of course, the pollution leaves no mark the moment that it stops, except on the shattered nerves and health of its victims. Unwanted noise raises blood pressure and cholesterol levels, increases muscle tension and induces hormone secretion among sufferers. It can also intensify hearing problems and may trigger attacks of tinnitus among vulnerable people.
The dangers of passive or involuntary listening are only beginning to enter the realm of public awareness. Noise pollution is often seen as unpleasant but inevitable. It is not. The Noise Act 1996 increased environmental health officers' powers to deal with noise, but 94 per cent. of local authorities have decided not to implement the Act, and only 10 authorities have done so.
Of course, I would be far happier if my Bill were not necessary. Is it too much to hope that, by my raising the issue in this way, people will think twice before installing muzak? An old proverb, thought to be of oriental origin, has it that speech is silver but silence is golden. There is a Hebrew equivalent—if a word be worth one shekel, silence is worth two. That is all true. But as Spike Milligan put it, "Tranquillity lubricates the soul, piped music destroys it."

Question put and agreed to.

Bill ordered to be brought in by Mr. Robert Key, Mr. Michael Fabricant, Mr. Gerald Kaufman, Mr. Paul Keetch, Miss Anne McIntosh, Mr. Michael Mates, Mrs. Gillian Shephard and Dr. Jenny Tonge.

BROADCASTING OF RECORDED MUSIC IN PUBLIC PLACES

Mr. Robert Key accordingly presented a Bill to prohibit the broadcasting of recorded music in certain public places: And the same was read the First time; and ordered to be read a Second time on Friday 7 April, and to be printed [Bill 90].

Orders of the Day — CONSOLIDATED FUND (No. 2) BILL

Order for Second Reading read.

Question, That the Bill be now read a Second time, put forthwith, pursuant to Standing Order No. 56 (Consolidated Fund Bills), and agreed to.

Bill accordingly read a Second time.

Question, That the Bill be read the Third time, put forthwith and agreed to.

Bill accordingly read the Third time, and passed.

Orders of the Day — Terrorism Bill

As amended in the Standing Committee, considered.

New Clause 1

FINANCIAL INFORMATION

'. Schedule [Financial information] (financial information) shall have effect.'.—[Mr. Charles Clarke.]

Brought up, and read the First time.

The Minister of State, Home Office (Mr. Charles Clarke): I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Michael Lord): With this, it will be convenient to discuss the following: Government amendment No. 39.
Government new schedule—Financial Information.

Mr. Clarke: The purpose of the new clause is to provide a new power to investigate terrorist finance. New schedule 1 sets out how, and new clause 1 switches on the new schedule. Amendment No. 39 adds the two order-making powers in the new schedule to the list of orders under the Bill to be made by affirmative resolution.
A similar power is already in use in Northern Ireland for proceeds of crime investigations. It is a very powerful tool and has proved its effectiveness. A so-called general bank circular, once authorised by a circuit judge or equivalent, allows the police to write to financial institutions asking them whether they hold accounts in particular names. The financial institution only has to say whether it holds accounts in the names given. If a person under investigation has, for example, a very large number of accounts, or accounts with a very large number of banks, that in itself can be a useful lead.
The general bank circular does not enable the police to look at the details of what is in the account. If the police wanted to do that, they would need to seek a production order under schedule 5. The new schedule is modelled on certain powers of financial investigators under schedule 2 to the Proceeds of Crime (Northern Ireland) Order 1996. However, rather than proceeds of crime, the new schedule is for investigating terrorist finance: that can, of course, include money intended for use in terrorism, not just proceeds of acts of terrorism, as in the definition of "terrorist property" in clause 14. That is why the new power is needed in Northern Ireland, as well as in Great Britain. In Northern Ireland, it will complement the existing power in the proceeds of crime order. In Great Britain, it will be new.
We have consulted the banking and financial services industry on the proposal. The banks were generally supportive and supplied helpful information on compliance costs and other practical issues, for which I put on record the Government's thanks. We have taken their views into account in developing the proposal. Further details of the consultation are in the regulatory impact assessment document, which has been placed in the Library.
Where an order is made under paragraph (1), a constable can require financial institutions, as defined in the Bill, to provide customer information, which is also defined in the Bill.
The new schedule contains two order-making powers, to change the definitions of the terms "financial institutions" and "customer information" for the purposes of the schedule. Amendment No. 39 ensures that those orders are subject to the affirmative procedure of the House.

Mr. David Lidington: Throughout the proceedings on the Bill, the Opposition have joined the Government in stressing the importance of having on the statute book measures that are comprehensive and effective when it comes to dealing with terrorist finances. Therefore, we support the new measures that the Minister has just described.
The safeguards built into the new clause and the new schedule are sufficient to enable us to accept that the liberties of the people and institutions affected by the proposals have been protected, and the Minister has set out how the affirmative resolution procedure will be utilised. A police officer of senior rank seeking an order under the arrangements will have to get the permission of a senior judge in order to proceed.
As the Government made clear in the regulatory impact assessment, the proposed annual review of the legislation will give the Government and Parliament the opportunity to hear representations from the financial services industry about the practical effect of the measure. There will as a result be an opportunity for the House to consider possible changes to the law in the light of those representations.
I have one minor criticism. The consultation period lasted from 2 September to 15 October last year, and it is a pity that the Government could not present detailed conclusions about this aspect of the Bill a little earlier. Although the financial institutions were consulted earlier, and their views taken into account last autumn, they have not yet had the opportunity to consider the Government's final proposals at length, or to consult members of the various representative organisations.
However, the new clause and new schedule are welcome and have our support.

Mr. Simon Hughes: We consider the power proposed in the new clause and new schedule to be reasonable. I have two specific questions for the Minister about the results of the consultation, which he has been kind enough to allow us to see.
First, has the Minister received an opinion from the Northern Ireland Human Rights Commission, the statutory body established to consider such matters? Secondly, a review of emergency legislation is reported to the House every year. Has the Minister received advice from any independent, Government-appointed person—Lord Lloyd, for example—who has undertaken such a review and can give authority to the proposal?
In general, we are happy with the new clause and new schedule. As the hon. Member for Aylesbury (Mr. Lidington) said, adjustments may have to made in the light of experience, but it is appropriate that this necessary power should be in this Bill.

Mr. Charles Clarke: I welcome the support from the Conservative and Liberal Democrat parties, and I accept the gentle and gracefully phrased rebuke from the hon. Member for Aylesbury (Mr. Lidington).
I can tell the hon. Member for Southwark, North and Bermondsey (Mr. Hughes) that our principal consultation was held with members of the financial, business and banking community. They would be most affected by our proposals, which we modified to some extent to meet the points that they raised. For example, we included the provision in paragraph (4)(b), which states that an institution can offer the defence that it has not complied with the requirement because to do so "was not reasonably practicable". That defence could be employed if an enormous number of names were involved, for example, or if there were other practical problems of a similar nature. The costs involved will not be disproportionate, as the regulatory impact assessment makes clear. We estimate that compliance costs to the banking and financial services industries will total about £900,000.
I cannot give the hon. Gentleman the detailed comments of the Northern Ireland Human Rights Commission, Lord Lloyd or anyone else, because our focus was on the banking community. However, I will write to him on that, as he requests.

Question put and agreed to.

Clause read a Second time, and added to the Bill.

New Clause 2

DETENTION OF TERRORISTS

'. Schedule [Detention of Terrorists] to this Act shall have effect with respect to the detention of terrorists and persons suspected of being terrorists.'.—[Mr. MacKay.]

Brought up, and read the First time.

Mr. Andrew MacKay: I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: With this, it will be convenient to discuss new schedule 2:—Detention of Terrorists—

Advisers

1. The Secretary of State shall for the purposes of this Schedule appoint such number of Advisers as he may determine to advise him on matters concerning the detention and release of terrorists.

2. An Adviser shall be a person who holds or has held judicial office in any part of the United Kingdom or who is—

(a) a person who has a ten year general qualification within the meaning of section 71 of the Courts and Legal Services Act 1990; or
(b) an advocate or solicitor in Scotland of at least ten years' standing; or
(c) a member of the Bar of Northern Ireland or solicitor of the Supreme Court of Northern Ireland of at least ten years' standing.

3.—(1) An Adviser shall hold and vacate his office in accordance with the terms of his appointment and shall, on ceasing to hold office, be eligible for reappointment.

(2) An Adviser may at any time by notice in writing to the Secretary of State resign his office.

(3) The Secretary of State may pay to the Advisers such remuneration and allowances as he may determine.

Interim custody orders

4.—(1) Where it appears to the Secretary of State that there are grounds for suspecting that a person has been concerned—

(a) in the commission or attempted commission of any act of terrorism, or
(b) in directing, organising or training persons for the purpose of terrorism,

the Secretary of State may make an interim custody order for the temporary detention of that person.

(2) An interim custody order shall be signed by the Secretary of State or a Minister of State or Under Secretary of State.

5.—(1) The Secretary of State may, at any time before the expiry of the period of fourteen days following the date of an interim custody order, refer the case to an Adviser and, unless the case is so referred, the order shall cease to have effect at the expiry of that period.

(2) A reference to an Adviser under this paragraph shall be by notice in writing signed on behalf of the Secretary of State and a copy of the notice shall be sent to the person detained.

Reference to an Adviser

6.—(1) As soon as possible after a case is referred to an Adviser under paragraph 5, the person detained shall be served with a statement in writing as to the nature of the terrorist activities of which he is suspected.

(2) A person detained may, within seven days following the date on which he receives any such statement as is mentioned in subparagraph (1), send to the Secretary of State—

(a) written representations concerning his case; and
(b) a written request that he be seen personally by an Adviser;

and the Secretary of State shall send a copy of such representations or request to the Adviser concerned.

(3) The Secretary of State may pay any reasonable costs or expenses incurred by a person detained in obtaining legal advice or legal assistance in connection with the preparation of any representations he may make concerning his case.

7.—(1) Where the case of a person detained under an interim custody order is referred to an Adviser, he shall consider it and report to the Secretary of State whether or not in his opinion—

(a) the person detained has been concerned in terrorist activities; and
(b) the detention of that person is necessary for the protection of the public.

(2) In considering any case referred to him an Adviser shall have regard to any information (whether oral or in writing) which is made available to, or obtained by, him and to any representations (whether oral or in writing) made by the persons detained.

(3) No person shall be present during the consideration of an Adviser of the case of any person referred to him, except—

(a) any person who for the time being is being seen by the Adviser;
(b) any assistant to the Adviser; and
(c) any person who is present in the interests of security.

(4) The Secretary of State may, at the request of an Adviser, pay any reasonable expenses incurred by any person in connection with a reference to the Adviser.

Detention orders

8.—(1) After receiving a report made by an Adviser under paragraph 7(1), the Secretary of State shall consider the case of the person to whom it relates and, if he is satisfied—

(a) that the person has been concerned in the commission or attempted commission of any act of terrorism, or in directing, organising or training persons for the purposes of terrorism, and
(b) that the detention of that person is necessary for the protection of the public,



the Secretary of State may make a detention order for the detention of that person.

(2) If, on considering any case under sub-paragraph (1), the Secretary of State is not satisfied as mentioned in that sub-paragraph, he shall direct the release of the person concerned.

(3) Subject to sub-paragraphs (4) and (5), where—

(a) a person is detained under an interim custody order; and
(b) a detention order is not made in respect of that person within the period of seven weeks following the date of the interim custody order,

the interim custody order shall cease to have effect.

(4) The Secretary of State may, where a person is required to be detained under an interim custody order, give a direction in writing extending the period of seven weeks mentioned in sub-paragraph (3) (or that period as extended under this sub-paragraph) for a further period of one week if it is stated in the direction that the report of the Adviser in relation to that person's case has not been received before the sixth day immediately preceding the day on which the interim custody order would, but for the direction, cease to have effect.

(5) Not more than three directions under sub-paragraph (4) shall be given in respect of any one interim custody order.

(6) A detention order shall be signed by the Secretary of State, and a direction under sub-paragraph (4) shall be signed by the Secretary of State or a Minister of State or Under Secretary of State.

Supplemental

9.—(1) The Secretary of State may at any time refer the case of a person detained under a detention order to an Adviser and, if so requested in writing in accordance with sub-paragraph (2) by a person so detained, shall do so within fourteen days beginning with the receipt of the request.

(2) A person detained under a detention order shall not be entitled to make a request for the purposes of sub-paragraph (1)—

(a) before the expiry of the period of one year beginning with the date of the detention order; or
(b) within a period of six months from the date of the last notification under sub-paragraph (5) below.

(3) On any reference under this paragraph, an Adviser shall consider the case and report to the Secretary of State whether or not the person's continued detention is necessary for the protection of the public.

(4) Paragraphs 6(3) and 7(2) to (4) shall apply for the purposes of a reference under this paragraph as they apply for the purposes of a reference under paragraph 5.

(5) Where a case is referred to an Adviser in consequence of a request made in accordance with this paragraph, the Secretary of State shall, after receiving the report of the Adviser, reconsider the case of the person to whom it relates and, if he decides not to release that person, shall notify him of his decision.

(6) A notification under sub-paragraph (5) shall be by notice in writing and signed by the Secretary of State.

10.—(1) The Secretary of State may, as respects a person detained under an interim custody order—

(a) direct his discharge unconditionally; or
(b) direct his release (whether or not subject to conditions) for a specified period.

(2) The Secretary of State may, as respects a person detained under a detention order—

(a) direct his discharge unconditionally; or
(b) direct his release subject to conditions or for a specified period, or both.

(3) The Secretary of State may recall to detention a person released under sub-paragraph (1)(b) or (2)(b) and a person so recalled may be detained under the original interim custody or detention order, as the case may be.

(4) Where a person is released under sub-paragraph (1)(b), any period during which he is not in detention shall be left out of account for the purposes of paragraphs 5(1), 6(2), and 8(3).

11.—(1) A person required to be detained under an interim custody order or a detention order may be detained in a prison or in some other place approved for the purposes of this paragraph by the Secretary of State.

(2) A person for the time being having custody of a person required to be detained as aforesaid shall have all the powers, authorities, protection and privileges of a constable.

(3) Subject to any directions of the Secretary of State, a person required to be detained as aforesaid shall be treated as nearly as be as if he were a prisoner detained in a prison on remand and any power of temporary removal for judicial, medical or other purposes shall apply accordingly.

(4) A person required to be detained as aforesaid who is unlawfully at large may be arrested without warrant by any constable or any member of Her Majesty's forces on duty.

12. Where a person required to be detained under an interim custody order is unlawfully at large, the interim custody order shall not cease to have effect under paragraphs 5 or 8 while he remains at large; and, upon his being taken again into custody, those paragraphs shall have effect as if the date of the interim custody order were that of his being taken again into custody.

13. Any person who—

(a) being detained under an interim custody order or detention order, escapes;
(b) rescues any person detained as aforesaid, or assists a person so detained in escaping or attempting to escape;
(c) fails to return to detention at the expiry of a period for which he was released under paragraph 10(1)(b) or (2)(b); or
(d) knowingly harbours any person required to be detained under an interim custody order or detention order, or gives him any assistance with intent to prevent, hinder or interfere with his being taken into custody,

is guilty of an offence and liable on conviction on indictment to imprisonment for a term not exceeding five years or a fine or both.

14.—(1) Any document purporting to be an order, notice or direction made or given by the Secretary of State for the purposes of this Schedule and to be signed in accordance with this Schedule shall be received in evidence and shall, until the contrary is proved, be deemed to be duly made or given and signed.

(2) Prima facie evidence of any such order, notice or direction may, in any legal proceedings, be given by the production of a document bearing a certificate purporting to be signed by or on behalf of the Secretary of State stating that the document is a true copy of the order, notice or direction; and the certificate shall be received in evidence, and shall, until the contrary is proved, be deemed to be duly made and signed.

15. The Secretary of State may make such payments to persons released or about to be released from detention under this Schedule as he may, with the consent of the Treasury, determine.'.

Mr. MacKay: The new schedule and the new clause would, quite simply, return internment to the statute book. Let me say immediately that I do not necessarily see the need for internment at present, and I do not necessarily advocate internment at any particular time. However, I sleep easier in my bed, and I think that the people of Northern Ireland and the Republic do as well, knowing that internment is readily available for the Secretary of State at any given time.
The House will be aware that from this Dispatch Box, I, and others, rigorously opposed the Government's decision, nearly two years ago, to remove internment from the statute book. We thought that that was ill advised, ill conceived and unnecessary. We have since noted that our


friends in the Republic have not followed suit. Internment remains on the statute book in the Republic of Ireland, and rightly so.
Let me briefly explain why I believe that it is in the interests of all law-abiding people that the Secretary of State, in extremis, has recourse to internment. I know that the Minister of State, who will be replying to this debate, will agree with me that we all hope and pray that the process moves forward. It is going through a difficult period at present, but we have had choppy water before, and we will have it again. We hope that in the not-too-distant future there will be a lasting peace in Northern Ireland. We hope that that lasting peace will include the paramilitaries—both so-called loyalist and republican—and their political parties, which signed up to the Belfast agreement, renouncing violence for good, decommissioning all their illegally held arms and explosives and playing their full role in the democratic process: that would include being Members of the Assembly and, in the case of Sinn Fein, resuming their ministerial positions in the Executive.
If those happy circumstances were to occur, history dictates that almost certainly splinter groups, both so-called loyalist and republican, would break away and say that the cause had been let down. They would not join the process and would not give up violence.
In the last few weeks, by and large, the guns have been silent and there is no certain evidence that those who signed up to the Belfast agreement have resumed serious violence. We know that there have been beatings, mutilations and kneecappings, but let us leave those to one side for the moment. There have not been other terrorist acts by those who signed the Belfast agreement. [Interruption.] I am very happy to give way to the hon. Member for Belfast, East (Mr. Robinson), but I would prefer that he did not intervene from a sedentary position.

Mr. Peter Robinson: Has the right hon. Gentleman acquitted the Ulster Volunteer Force of the two murders in Armagh?

Mr. MacKay: That will be for the security forces and the judiciary to decide. No one has been convicted of those crimes yet.
I am saying that the guns of the mainstream paramilitaries are silent at present. Long may that continue, but the splinter groups are very active. As we know, and as the Minister and his security advisers will confirm, Continuity IRA was responsible for a bomb that could have killed many people in Irvinestown only a few weeks ago. Mercifully, attempts on two separate Army barracks, at Ballykelly and at Dungannon, were thwarted. If the security forces had not been vigilant, there could have been a huge loss of life.
If the process reaches a happy and logical conclusion, those splinter groups will become even more aggressive and violent. They will be capable of destabilising the process. In those circumstances, the Secretary of State and his opposite number south of the border may well think it wise to reintroduce internment temporarily. I will not second-guess whether they would be wise to do so, because we will not know the exact circumstances until they happen. I am convinced that that rather blunt

instrument, which did not work in the 1970s but worked extremely well in the 1920s, 1930s and 1940s and in the 1957–62 campaign, and was used effectively by both the De Valera and the Lemass Governments in the south, is worth having in any Government's armoury.
The previous Secretary of State foolishly said, "Don't worry. I will reintroduce legislation on internment if necessary." That was one of the more preposterous suggestions that she made at the Dispatch Box. Clearly, internment works only if there is an element of surprise. If internment is on the statute book, it can be used at extremely short notice. Primary legislation—even emergency legislation—takes time, as you are aware Mr. Deputy Speaker.
Finally, the men of violence would certainly sleep less easily at night if they believed that internment was possible. They would be constantly on the run, under threat and destabilised and surely hon. Members on both sides of the House would want that. Therefore, I urge the House to make good the Government's mistake in taking internment off the statute book and to return through this legislation by supporting the new clause and the new schedule.

Mr. Lembit Öpik: I apologise for missing the first couple of minutes of the speech of the right hon. Member for Bracknell (Mr. MacKay). I spoke with the right hon. Gentleman before the debate and had a clear picture of what he intended to do, and I understand his reasoning.
The Liberal Democrats take a different view on the issue. While I understand the right hon. Gentleman's logic and his argument that Ireland still has internment, which is correct, the act of using it in Northern Ireland in the 1970s was tremendously provocative. If we reintroduce it now, we will be sending all the wrong signals to Northern Ireland, especially to the nationalist communities.
The right hon. Gentleman correctly said that surprise was an important element in the use of internment. However, to reintroduce it to the Northern Ireland environment at this time would be a very active step and might be detrimental because of the tensions that it would generate in the nationalist communities. More tensions are the last thing that we need while the Assembly is suspended. As the right hon. Gentleman noted, internment did not work in the 1970s. In our judgment, it would not work in the current Northern Ireland environment—even if there were to be a further deterioration of the situation.
The right hon. Gentleman prefaced his comments with many "ifs". It is true that if those circumstances occurred, the security situation would be serious. At that point, we should have to consider what to do about it. However, my fear is that if we were to introduce internment, it would prompt some of those "ifs" into reality. It would provide some of the hardliners in paramilitary organisations with the opportunity to point at Westminster and claim that there had been a breakdown in faith through the reintroduction of practices that were almost universally condemned as detrimental to the Northern Ireland political environment in the 1970s.
Although Ireland retains internment on its statutes, that does not provide an accurate comparison because in Northern Ireland, internment means something different. Furthermore, it is regarded as a clumsy and fairly ineffective means of state—or Westminster—control over nationalists.


I hope that the matter will not go to a vote, but if there were to be a vote on the new clause, my party and I will be obliged to support the Government.

Mr. Andrew Robathan: In supporting the new clause tabled by my right hon. Friend the Member for Bracknell (Mr. MacKay), I should like to go back to those halcyon days when I was young, and when one or two Ministers had less grey hair. In 1972, Operation Motorman brought about the introduction of internment in Northern Ireland. Many of my friends were involved in that operation, although I was still a callow youth at university. When I was in Belfast in 1975, internment was still much on people's minds, because it had ended only within the previous nine months.
In 1972, internment was not a success—apart, perhaps, from the fact that it provoked support for the terrorists. However, that does not condemn it for ever as a legitimate weapon in the anti-terrorist armoury. On my subsequent visits to Northern Ireland, I found that most people involved in security and in keeping the peace said that it was useful to keep internment in the back locker. Terrorists are frightened of the idea of internment; key people can be locked up for a long time with no justification, thereby ruining terrorist operations.
Internment failed in 1972 because the intelligence that led to the arrest of many people—almost wholly from the nationalist community—was hopeless and out of date. That was what stirred up so many members of the nationalist community and provoked support for the IRA. However, that does not mean that a time could not come when one had sufficient intelligence to nobble top terrorists and remove them from the streets, while one carried out some political activity or sorted out security arrangements.
Despite that lack of success in 1972, the subsequent 28 years have shown us that great strides have been made in the improvement of intelligence and in the knowledge of who, and where, the terrorists are. In 1972, the personnel of Operation Motorman were knocking at the doors of houses that had been boarded up for months or years. They arrested the wrong people; they had no intelligence—frequently, they did not even have photographs. However, things are now much better.
The hon. Member for Montgomeryshire (Mr. Öpik) said that the reintroduction of internment would send the wrong messages. However, removing it from the statute book—as we did in 1997, against Conservative opposition—sent entirely the wrong message: that there might never be another occasion on which one might want to lock up dangerous and unpleasant terrorists who had been killing people and against whom one could not, perhaps, obtain a conviction in court.

Mr. Öpik: All the legal powers still exist—they are open to the police and the security forces—to apprehend individuals who are regarded as a threat.

Mr. Robathan: Yes, indeed. Perhaps the hon. Gentleman will correct me if I am wrong, but I think that we can hold people, only in Northern Ireland, for 72 hours.

Mr. Öpik: indicated assent.

Mr. Robathan: The hon. Gentleman confirms my belief.

Mr. Kevin McNamara: Under this legislation, one could possibly hold them for a week.

Mr. Robathan: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for his knowledge of the situation.
Both hon. Gentlemen who intervened will know that hardened terrorists shrug their shoulders at the prospect of being held for a week by the RUC. They eat rather better than they might have done otherwise; they have a break from alcohol and perhaps from cigarettes. They do not get roughed up, as is occasionally alleged, and these days they have a pretty easy time, although I accept that perhaps that was not always true in the past.
My point is that one day we may need to be able to arrest known terrorists and keep them in detention indefinitely. The message that we are sending by not having internment is that we do not think that there can ever be circumstances in which we will have to return to such action. That sends all the wrong messages to the terrorists, who believe that, yet again, the British Government are giving up more of their powers and their ability to deal with terrorism. Terrorism does not affect most of us in this room, but it affects deeply and permanently the few people who live in Northern Ireland, and it changes the pattern of life of all the communities in Northern Ireland.
Internment was one weapon against terrorists, and I very much regret that it is not on the statute book. I applaud the initiative of my right hon. Friend the Member for Bracknell in trying to bring back internment in the Bill, because it would be welcomed by all those who want peace and an end to the troubles in Northern Ireland.

Mr. Peter Robinson: I had not intended to speak on the new clause, but lest my earlier intervention be interpreted as a desire to pick a fight with the mover of the new clause, the right hon. Member for Bracknell (Mr. MacKay), I want to clarify my position. I entirely support the new clause, and I do so as someone who opposed internment in 1972 and whose party also did so.
I intervened because I am concerned that we often allow terrorist organisations—which now operate a no claim, no blame policy—literally to get away with murder. Everybody knows that the Provisional IRA has been guilty of a number of killings, including the killing of Charles Bennett. However, if we apply the same criteria as the right hon. Gentleman did, we cannot make that assumption because no one has been charged, even though all the intelligence available to the RUC leads it to that conclusion.
The dogs in the street know full well that the Provisional IRA killed Charles Bennett and a number of others. Equally, they know that the UVF killed the three Quinn children and that UVF members were involved in the killing of two young men in County Armagh. We should not attempt to protect terrorist organisations from the condemnation of the community by allowing them to hide behind the policy of not claiming their acts and therefore getting away with them.
We should take account of the written answers on 17 February to several questions seeking information


about the number of terrorist actions since the so-called "peace process" began. The first question asked:
how many people … have been (a) shot and (b) mutilated by terrorists since the Good Friday Agreement.—[Official Report, 17 February 2000; Vol. 344, c. 617W.]
The Minister of State replied that 155 had received gunshot wounds, 456 had been injured in explosions and 1,811 had been injured under the heading "Other", giving a total of 2,422.
When asked specifically about attacks on the Royal Ulster Constabulary, the Minister said that there had been 23 attacks by firearms, 45 by explosives, 2,348 by missiles including petrol bombs, six assaults and 279 attacks under the heading "Other". That is a total of 2,901 attacks on the RUC. On the question of the number of casualties as a result of paramilitary-style attacks, the Minister said that republicans were responsible for 46 shootings and 88 assaults, and so-called loyalists were responsible for 79 shootings and 172 assaults.
All that shows that there have been thousands of incidents, which in any other community would be recognised as terrorist related, at a time when we are told that there is a peace process. No one in the House should fool themselves into believing that those incidents are entirely the result of dissident groups. Some of them may well be due to dissidents, but the majority of those attacks are taking place under the direction of the main paramilitary organisations, which have declared a ceasefire.
The Opposition are right to table the new clause, and it deserves support. As I said, I opposed internment in 1972. It was ham-fisted and it was carried out at a time when insufficient up-to-date information and intelligence were available to the security forces. I agree entirely with the policy of selective internment, of which the hon. Member for Fermanagh and South Tyrone (Mr. Maginnis) and I have approved for many years. Under that policy, the security forces can, on the basis of firm information available to them, pick up ringleaders if there is no other course through the normal rule of law. In those circumstances, internment is justifiable.
The new clause does not even ask for the introduction of internment, so there should be no alarm in the Chamber. It asks only that the instrument be available if the circumstances merit its use. It deserves the support of the House. Internment would be a weapon available to the security forces, should circumstances dictate its need. However, as an instrument it is useless unless there is a will on the part of the Government to take whatever measures are necessary against terrorist organisations.
I do not find that the Government have the will to deal with terrorist organisations. That will can be demonstrated by introducing measures under the Northern Ireland (Sentences) Act 1998. Under that Act, the Government could take action today, because it places on the Secretary of State a duty to stop any further prison releases if an organisation is not co-operating fully with the decommissioning body. General de Chastelain has indicated in writing to the Government that the IRA is not co-operating with the decommissioning body, and, on that basis, the Secretary of State should be taking action. He should consider other criteria that, on their own, allow him to take action.
The Government refuse to do that because their policy is to appease terrorism, do a deal with terrorism and reach agreements with terrorism. That is the weakness in their whole policy. When dealing with terrorism, there is only one policy that works—zero tolerance. The Government do not adopt that policy; their policy is one of appeasement.

Mr. McNamara: I had not intended to speak in the debate, but I find the last words of the hon. Member for Belfast, East (Mr. Robinson) appalling. I do not believe that appeasement is the policy of Her Majesty's Government, any more than I believe that it was the policy of the right hon. Member for Cities of London and Westminster (Mr. Brooke) or his successors, as they sought to bring the terrible tragedy of Northern Ireland to a peaceful conclusion. I therefore rebut the hon. Gentleman's remarks.
I think that I am the only Member now in the Chamber who was a Member of this place when internment was introduced. I am certain that I am the only Member now in the Chamber who voted against it after we had an opportunity to debate it. I voted against it along with about 100 Labour colleagues, because we felt that internment was wrong.
We are fighting people who refuse to accept the concept of the rule of law. We shall not defeat them by ourselves doing away with the rule of law; we shall defeat them by bringing people before properly constituted courts and putting them on trial, where their guilt or innocence will be proved.
I find it strange that people forget the debacle of 1971, when internment was introduced. They seem to go back to the halcyon days of 1956 to 1962, or some others. They do not accept, or they refuse to accept, that the campaigns in those days were very different from what was happening in Northern Ireland in 1968, after the attempts to crush the civil rights movement by the then Stormont Government.
The earlier campaigns were inspired mainly by those outside the Six Counties of Northern Ireland. The present campaign, whether we like it or not, is mainly indigenous to Northern Ireland. That makes it very different. When the then Prime Minister, the right hon. Member for Old Bexley and Sidcup (Sir E. Heath), accepted the advice of Brian Faulkner that internment was the answer, that led to the tragedy of it becoming an enormous recruiting office for the Provisional IRA. Secondly, it was an anti-internment march that led to Bloody Sunday. Thirdly, there was the handling of the hunger strikers. Those three classic mistakes between them managed to inspire the Provisional IRA, and enabled it to draw recruits into its camps at times when it was not having the support of very many people in the community of the north of Ireland.
I am surprised that the right hon. Member for Bracknell (Mr. MacKay) tabled the new clause. The circumstances as described by him and by the hon. Member for Belfast, East are similar to many circumstances that existed in Northern Ireland after the Government of the now Lord Callaghan phased out internment. With the legislation on the statute book, they could have reintroduced internment at any time if they had wanted to. They chose not to do so because they realised the psychological impact that internment would have if it were reintroduced in Northern Ireland.
It is easy to say that the dogs in the street know who is guilty. The problem is that we have not yet been able to translate the barking of the dogs into English, so we do not have the evidence. If everybody knows, why do we not have the evidence? Once we start a process of doing things on the basis of suspicion and saying, "This is our evidence", we are on a slippery slope right along the line. Moreover, we would have to derogate from the European convention on human rights, which I understood the Opposition supported when its provisions came before the House, especially article 5—the right to a fair trial and that there should be lawful arrest and detention only. That means that a person is arrested or detained so as to bring him before a properly constituted court, as is laid down in article 5.
We would be in real difficulty if, for even one moment, we were to consider doing what the Opposition suggest that we do. We are right to congratulate the Government on keeping the undertaking that they gave the Opposition that we would repeal the internment provisions and would not put them back on the statute book.

Mr. Richard Shepherd: I do not think that any Conservative Member has worked harder than my right hon. Friend the Member for Bracknell (Mr. MacKay) to try to advance what the Government are trying to do in Northern Ireland, and to offer support for that. I am grateful to the hon. Member for Belfast, East (Mr. Robinson) for reminding us of some of the circumstances in Northern Ireland, but the truest words were spoken by the hon. Member for Hull, North (Mr. McNamara).
Most of us in England—or in this country, England, Scotland and Wales—grapple even to begin to understand the dilemma, the hatreds and the causes that have brought Northern Ireland to the centre of everyone's attention. Yet the truth is that we are a land of liberty. This is a great democracy and we struggle and thrash around in the face of irreconcilables. What does one do when people do not accept the authority of the words or views of a state's citizenry? It is a true dilemma that seems to be more immediate and more urgent across the surface of the globe.
The history of detaining people by internment has, by and large, been very unhappy throughout the globe. If anything, it concentrates the passions on both sides. I follow the argument of the hon. Member for Hull, North, which is rare, when he says that the process of law and the rule of law is what we are about.
Mandating and detention depend on knowledge, but knowledge without the standards of proof that would bring people to court. These processes are bedevilled by the informer, and sometimes the paid informer. As often as not, they provide the opportunity for settling old scores. Over the years, we have seen that awful injustices have been done when informers have been employed. The intent is to pacify and remove from society a danger and a threat. However, let us reflect on our own circumstances, because our appreciation of liberty and the rule of law must derive from how we would react if we were placed in circumstances where, through malignancy, people gave false information about ourselves. The circumstances could be construed in such a way as to give, however fleeting it may subsequently turn out to be, some

appearance of reality. Would we not be enraged if our son, our brother or a member of our family were incarcerated by that means?
By and large, decent people take the judgments of the courts and the authority of Government to indicate that the individual so identified is naturally, rightly and effectively detained. I am extremely unhappy about setting aside—

Mr. Ken Maginnis: Is the hon. Gentleman not arguing from the specific to the general? Is it not the case that people have been convicted through the courts, at times—rarely, thankfully—on the basis of false information? Is it any more likely that those who are leading terrorist organisations would be wrongly interned if internment were introduced? Where is the difference between the protection of society through internment and through the courts when it comes to that odd case of wrong information?

Mr. Shepherd: My fear about the processes of detention used under provisions such as the new clause and the new schedule is that the powers granted are general. A court specifically identifies through due process the case for the prosecution and the case for the defence; by and large, society has trusted that process for a long time. The history of detention is unsatisfactory, unhappy and, in some cases, tragic.

Mr. Harold Best: Does the hon. Gentleman agree that the potential for internment opens up the possibility of a presumption of guilt being made? Does he also agree that those who are interned might be regarded by some as either guilty or very guilty, and that that would have more to do with the weight of evidence rather than the quality of evidence involved? Does not justice stand on the quality of evidence?

Mr. Shepherd: I notice that, in the new schedule, my right hon. Friend the Member for Bracknell allows for the intermediation of an adviser. If I understand it correctly, the adviser is to play an almost judicial role. If so, my argument is that the due processes of court should be used.

Mr. McNamara: Is not the whole point of the adviser to ensure that the person interned does not see the evidence against him, and so is not in a position to refute it? Even though representations may be made to the adviser, he sees only one side of the case, and the burden of evidence is not seen by the person who is interned. On the question of errors made in court, does the hon. Gentleman agree that, if such errors are made—many have been—society recognises that and, to the extent that it can, compensates those who have been wrongly accused and later had their conviction quashed?

Mr. Shepherd: Yes, but internment is generally used against a whole class of people—it does not result from individual assessment and weighing of evidence. From that usage emerge great tensions and hatreds—one need only look at the example of the Boer war to realise that. Across the world, we have seen the containment of sections of populations and witnessed how the hatred and revulsion already present in the community so detained is clarified by the act of general internment.
I do not imagine that the powers in the new clause and new schedule will be used, but it is important that we understand that the history of internment can give us no


confidence in its utility—nor can the need to rely on informers, sometimes paid informers, or the appreciation that the information given is often provided for reasons other than to serve justice. The truth in life and democracy is that, even if a man or woman has been convicted in the past of an act that we loathe, that does not mean that that individual is guilty of that with which he or she is subsequently charged, independent of the original act.

Mr. Robathan: My hon. Friend makes a powerful and typically high-principled argument, but it is important that we understand the circumstances in which internment might be used. I have said before that I do not like internment, but I understand from newspaper reports—I do not necessarily believe them—that the head of the Garda in the Republic has said that he knows perfectly well who the Omagh bombers are, but that he cannot convict them. Yes, the process uses informers, which is unpleasant, and of course some people will be wrongly interned, as they have been in the past; but when one sees the reasons why witnesses will not stand up and testify against murderers such as the Omagh bombers—those reasons being intimidation and threats of murder and maiming—one has to face up to the fact that internment, preferably not used, might be a weapon worth having.

Mr. Shepherd: I do not doubt that the head of the Garda is a sincere and honourable man, but I have heard of many people who have asserted that they know all manner of things—they know the guilt of others. However, our process is not about individuals knowing the guilt; we require a higher standard than that.
That is the crisis the House always faces when it deals with terrorism. We fear terrorism because it strikes at the very existence of Parliament, and in our fear we reach for instruments. However, we do so in advance of events. The powers in the new clause and new schedule are meant to be reserve powers, to be used if necessary. My point is that that is not necessarily appropriate or helpful. The notion that we can take the power to confine people based on the assertion, "I know it's them", is an extraordinarily draconian response. In a democracy such as ours, such a power should be invoked only in time of war, when the very survival of the nation is at stake.
I defer to those hon. Members who represent the people of Northern Ireland. Mine must appear a highly abstract argument to those who are confident that they know who the bad ones are and who face them every day. Perhaps they are right, but the House should require a higher standard than that. That is why I am extremely cautious about the new clause and the new schedule.

The Minister of State, Northern Ireland Office (Mr. Adam Ingram): I start by saying that if my voice gives up in the middle of my speech it is because I have been suffering from flu for the past few days; I may have to pause now and then to take a sip of water.
Because of its history, internment is an extremely sensitive issue on both sides of the Irish border, as our short debate has shown. I have listened carefully to the debate, which touched on some profound issues.
I shall deal first with the points raised by the hon. Member for Belfast, East (Mr. Robinson), who repeatedly makes the charge that the Government are involved in a

form of appeasement of terrorism. I can rebut that by pointing out that there are 15,000 British soldiers and more than 12,000 RUC officers in Northern Ireland. They are not involved in appeasement. They are acting according to the wishes of the Government and to protect human rights and human life.
When the hon. Gentleman makes such allegations against the Government, he never offers anything positive. A genuine democrat would set out the way forward, but the hon. Gentleman never does that. All he does is spray around allegations, label people as criminals without evidence, and charge the Government with appeasement. There is no foundation for his allegations and I ask him to reflect on those brave men and women who serve in Northern Ireland in the armed forces and the RUC. They do not see themselves as appeasers—[Interruption.] As usual, the hon. Gentleman shouts from a sedentary position: I shall give way if he wishes to intervene.

Mr. Peter Robinson: Is the Minister referring to the "chinless wonders" mentioned by the Secretary of State?

Mr. Ingram: We are trying to have a serious debate, but the hon. Gentleman is dragging it down. I do not know whether he was present at today's Question Time when my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State expressed his regret about having made that comment. I believe he described it as a gaffe; well, everyone makes gaffes. The hon. Member for Belfast, East makes gaffes whenever he makes his allegations against the Government and against the brave men and women who serve in Northern Ireland.

6 pm

Mr. Robathan: This is a serious point. I do not necessarily accuse the Government of appeasement, although I am pretty worried about it from time to time. The Minister prays in aid the brave men and women serving in the RUC and the Army. I can tell him that in the autumn, when the present Secretary of State took over, three battalions of Foot Guards out of five were serving in Northern Ireland under the jurisdiction of the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland. I can tell him categorically that they are fed up with what he said at the weekend. It may have been a flippant gaffe, but it reveals a lot about the Secretary of State's thinking.
Similarly, enforcing all the Patten commission's recommendations is undermining the morale of the brave men and women of the RUC—

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. The hon. Gentleman is straying a little too far from the new clause.

Mr. Ingram: I am prepared to defend the Secretary of State in all that he is trying to do to achieve peace. All his energy is directed at trying to bring about a new future for Northern Ireland. He has apologised for that comment, and we should let the matter rest. To return to it constantly serves no useful purpose.
If it were in order, I would also be prepared to debate the Patten report and the way in which that was envisaged in the Good Friday agreement, which I thought the hon. Member for Blaby (Mr. Robathan) supported. As usual, he wants to cherry pick. He supports the bits with which he agrees, and rejects the rest. We cannot move forward on that basis.
The Government acknowledge that different views on internment are held by people inside and outside the House who have Northern Ireland's best interests at heart. However, the Government stand firmly by their position, because we have yet to be convinced that internment represents an effective policy in Northern Ireland at the beginning of the 21st century.
Right hon. and hon. Members are aware that executive detention powers were removed from the statute book during the passage of the Northern Ireland (Emergency Provisions) Act 1998. The issue was further debated that same year in the context of the Criminal Justice (Terrorism and Conspiracy) Act 1998, which was passed in the wake of the Omagh bomb.
It may be helpful if I refer to the Prime Minister's words on that occasion. He said:
We had to make a judgment about internment. We have made it clear that we do not rule anything out for ever, but my judgment is that the history of internment as it operates here and in the Irish Republic is different.
All the way through, we are trying to take carefully targeted measures that allow us to deal with these terrorist groups, but do not provoke such a backlash in other parts of the community that they undermine the fight that we are trying to secure. I agree that that is a matter of judgment, but that is our judgment; although, as I say, we rule nothing out for the future, should things be necessary.—[Official Report, 2 September 1998; Vol. 317. c. 697–8.]
The case presented by the right hon. Member for Bracknell (Mr. MacKay) for the Opposition was predicated on the possibility or even the probability of failure. He argued, as he has done previously, that the peace process, which he genuinely wants to reach a successful conclusion, could none the less have certain ramifications, such as the fragmentation of the paramilitary groups.
If we send out a message that fragmentation is inevitable and that it will be on such a scale that we will have to take such punitive action in the future, the right hon. Gentleman is implying the failure, not the success, of the peace process. [Interruption.] The right hon. Gentleman says from a sedentary position that he is being realistic, but we must deal with the implications.
Under the Good Friday agreement, the Government are committed to moving towards normal security arrangements in Northern Ireland as quickly as possible, consistent with the level of threat. That includes the removal of Northern Ireland specific temporary legislative powers as soon as it is safe to do so. Obviously, the reintroduction of internment, even if its immediate use were not advocated, would be a negative step in the context of that objective.
I believe that those who advocate the return of the powers proposed in the new clause have a responsibility to be frank and tell the House when they would propose using them and against whom. There are a number of profound questions which it is right to pose at this point. How would those who argue for the return of internment guarantee that those powers would be used against the right people? On what basis would people be rounded up?
The hon. Member for Aldridge-Brownhills (Mr. Shepherd) spoke about malicious information. People could be rounded up wrongly and interned as a consequence. Intelligence is not necessarily perfect. We cannot always guarantee that the information available to us would stand up in a court of law. We may have well-founded suspicions and a good knowledge base, but they may not stand examination in court.
The hon. Member for Fermanagh and South Tyrone (Mr. Maginnis) pointed out that the law courts could get it wrong. If the courts get it wrong, it is more likely that, as the hon. Member for Aldridge—Brownhills commented, executive detention provisions would get it wrong as well.
Let us consider that possibility. What would be the consequences for civil order in Northern Ireland? Everyone admits that the last time internment was used, it failed. Now some argue that it would be more likely to succeed because of better intelligence. However, they forget about the reaction within the community from which people would be swept up.
Those who argue for the reintroduction of internment must tell us what would be the consequences for civil order and the implications for the peace process, which would be in the process of evolution. In advocating that approach, the right hon. Member for Bracknell must deal with those questions.
There is a further fundamental question. Do those who advocate internment genuinely believe that its introduction at this stage will help the peace process? Will it assist the republican and loyalist communities if those who advocate a peaceful progress towards democracy and away from violence now acknowledge the possibility of failure somewhere down the line? The right hon. Gentleman must answer that. Does he believe that the new clause would help the peace process or deflect us from it? He did not deal with that in his contribution.
It is important that we legislate on the basis of a reasoned assessment of the security situation. We are not in the business, and Government should never be in the business, of legislating for hypothetical situations. Unless there is a clear-cut case for taking the powers suggested, to do so would be a backward step now or in the foreseeable future.

Mr. Maginnis: The Minister has access to enough high-grade intelligence to know that the Real IRA was responsible for the Omagh bomb, and that a man called McKevitt is the leader of the Real IRA. How will the Minister deal with the terrorist organisation that McKevitt is putting together, before that organisation, made up of cells, is so big and so efficient that the whole of society is once again in jeopardy? He must address that question, side by side with the question of internment.

Mr. Ingram: The hon. Gentleman is right about the level of intelligence that I receive. With the exception of the Minister of State, Home Office, my hon. Friend the Member for Norwich, South (Mr. Clarke), I receive the highest level of intelligence in the House. However, I will not confirm or deny that intelligence, or confirm the allegations of the hon. Member for Fermanagh and South Tyrone at the Dispatch Box, because I could thereby jeopardise any possible court action against individuals, or even groups if decisions on proscription or specification were made relative to other legislation.
We have to tackle the new growth in dissident groups. That is a matter for the security forces, not politicians, although we have to deal with it in some forms. However, the criminal justice system—including the police, the prosecution authorities and the courts—ultimately and rightly brings people to justice, not politicians.
I have tried to present counter-arguments. We had the same debate when the Government removed executive detention, known as internment, and on subsequent


occasions. We have returned to the subject because the right hon. Member for Bracknell and the Conservative party want to have the debate without proving conclusively that they would achieve the objective that I share with the right hon. Gentleman—a peaceful future in Northern Ireland. The right hon. Gentleman must make his case on that point: will the new clause help or hinder the process? We conclude that it could hinder the process. The right hon. Gentleman has to prove that it would help the process. He has not done that. I therefore ask him not to press the new clause to a vote.

Question put, That the clause be read a Second time:—

The House divided: Ayes 140, Noes 330.

Division No. 108]
[6.11 pm


AYES


Ainsworth, Peter (E Surrey)
Hamilton, Rt Ron Sir Archie


Amess, David
Hammond, Philip


Ancram, Rt Hon Michael
Hawkins, Nick


Arbuthnot, Rt Hon James
Hayes, John


Atkinson, David (Bour"mth E)
Heald, Oliver


Baldry, Tony
Heathcoat-Amory, Rt Hon David


Beggs, Roy
Horam, John


Bercow, John
Howarth, Gerald (Aldershot)


Beresford, Sir Paul
Jack, Rt Hon Michael


Blunt, Crispin
Jackson, Robert (Wantage)


Body, Sir Richard
Jenkin, Bernard


Boswell, Tim
Johnson Smith, Rt Hon Sir Geoffrey


Brazier, Julian



Brooke, Rt Hon Peter
Key, Robert


Browning, Mrs Angela
King, Rt Hon Tom (Bridgwater)


Bruce, Ian (S Dorset)
Kirkbride, Miss Julie


Burns, Simon
Lait, Mrs Jacqui


Butterfill, John
Lansley, Andrew


Cash, William
Letwin, Oliver


Chapman, Sir Sydney (Chipping Barnet)
Lewis, Dr Julian (New Forest E)



Lidington, David


Clappison, James
Lilley, Rt Hon Peter


Clark, Dr Michael (Rayleigh)
Lloyd, Rt Hon Sir Peter (Fareham)


Clarke, Rt Hon Kenneth (Rushcliffe)
Loughton, Tim



Luff, Peter


Clifton-Brown, Geoffrey
Lyell, Rt Hon Sir Nicholas


Corrnack, Sir Patrick
MacGregor, Rt Hon John


Cran, James
McIntosh, Miss Anne


Davis, Rt Hon David (Haltemprice)
MacKay, Rt Hon Andrew


Day, Stephen
Maclean, Rt Hon David


Donaldson, Jeffrey
McLoughlin, Patrick


Dorrell, Rt Hon Stephen
Madel, Sir David


Duncan, Alan
Maginnis, Ken


Duncan Smith, Iain
Major, Rt Hon John


Evans, Nigel
Maples, John


Faber, David
Maude, Rt Hon Francis


Fabricant, Michael
May, Mrs Theresa


Fallon, Michael
Moss, Malcolm


Flight, Howard
Nicholls, Patrick


Forsythe, Clifford
Norman, Archie


Fowler, Rt Hon Sir Norman
O'Brien, Stephen (Eddisbury)


Fox, Dr Liam
Ottaway, Richard


Fraser, Christopher
Page, Richard


Gale, Roger
Paterson, Owen


Garnier, Edward
Pickles, Eric


Gibb, Nick
Portillo, Rt Hon Michael


Gill, Christopher
Prior, David


Gillan, Mrs Cheryl
Randall, John


Gray, James
Robathan, Andrew


Green, Damian
Robinson, Peter (Belfast E)


Greenway, John
Roe, Mrs Marion (Broxbourne)


Grieve, Dominic
Ross, William (E Lond'y)


Gummer, Rt Hon John
Ruffley, David


Hague, Rt Hon William
St Aubyn, Nick





Sayeed, Jonathan
Trend, Michael


Shephard, Rt Hon Mrs Gillian
Tyrie, Andrew


Smyth, Rev Martin (Belfast S)
Viggers, Peter


Spelman, Mrs Caroline
Walter, Robert


Spicer, Sir Michael
Wardle, Charles


Spring, Richard
Waterson, Nigel


Stanley, Rt Hon Sir John
Wells, Bowen


Steen, Anthony
Whittingdale, John


Streeter, Gary
Widdecombe, Rt Hon Miss Ann


Swayne, Desmond
Wilkinson, John


Syms, Robert
Willetts, David


Tapsell, Sir Peter
Wishire, David


Taylor, Ian (Esher & Walton)
Winterton, Mrs Ann (Congleton)


Taylor, Rt Hon John D (Strangford)
Winterton, Nicholas (Macclesfield)


Taylor, John M (Solihull)
Yeo, Tim


Taylor, Sir Teddy
Young, Rt Hon Sir George


Thompson, William
Tellers for the Ayes:


Townend, John
Mrs. Eleanor Laing and


Tredinnick, David
Mr. Keith Simpson.




NOES


Ainger, Nick
Casale, Roger


Ainsworth, Robert (Cov'try NE)
Cawsey, Ian


Alexander, Douglas
Chapman, Ben (Wirral S)


Allen, Graham
Chaytor, David


Anderson, Donald (Swansea E)
Chidgey, David


Anderson, Janet (Rossendale)
Clapham, Michael


Armstrong, Rt Hon Ms Hilary
Clark, Dr Lynda (Edinburgh Pentlands)


Ashdown, Rt Hon Paddy



Ashton, Joe
Clark, Paul (Gillingham)


Atkins, Charlotte
Clarke, Charles (Norwich S)


Austin, John
Clelland, David


Baker, Norman
Clwyd, Ann


Ballard, Jackie
Coaker, Vernon


Barnes, Harry
Coffey, Ms Ann


Beard, Nigel
Cohen, Harry


Beckett, Rt Hon Mrs Margaret
Coleman, Iain


Begg, Miss Anne
Colman, Tony


Beith, RT Hon A J
Connarty, Michael


Bell, Martin (Tatton)
Cook, Frank (Stockton N)


Bell, Stuart (Middlesbrough)
Cooper, Yvette


Benn, Hilary (Leeds C)
Corston, Jean


Benn, Rt Hon Tony (Chesterfield)
Cotter, Brian


Bennett, Andrew F
Cousins, Jim


Bermingham, Gerald
Cranston, Ross


Berry, Roger
Crausby, David


Best, Harold
Cryer, Mrs Ann (Keighley)


Betts, Clive
Cryer, John (Hornchurch)


Blackman, Liz
Cummings, John


Blears, Ms Hazel
Cunningham, Jim (Cov'try S)


Blizzard, Bob
Curtis-Thomas, Mrs Claire


Boateng, Rt Hon Paul
Darvill, Keith


Borrow, David
Davey, Edward (Kingston)


Bradley, Keith (Withington)
Davey, Valerie (Bristol W)


Bradley, Peter (The Wrekin)
Davidson, Ian


Bradshaw, Ben
Davies, Rt Hon Denzil (Llanelli)


Brake, Tom
Davies, Geraint (Croydon C)


Breed, Colin
Dawson, Hilton


Brinton, Mrs Helen
Doran, Frank


Browne, Desmond
Dowd, Jim


Bruce, Malcolm (Gordon)
Drew, David


Buck, Ms Karen
Dunwoody, Mrs Gwyneth


Burden, Richard
Eagle, Angela (Wallasey)


Burgon, Colin
Eagle, Maria (L'pool Garston)


Burnett, John
Edwards, Huw


Burstow, Paul
Ennis, Jeff


Butler, Mrs Christine
Fearn, Ronnie


Byers, Rt Hon Stephen
Field, Rt Hon Frank


Campbell, Alan (Tynemouth)
Fisher, Mark


Campbell, Mrs Anne (C'bridge)
Flint, Caroline


Campbell, Rt Hon Menzies (NE Fife)
Flynn, Paul



Foster, Rt Hon Derek


Campbell-Savours, Dale
Foster, Don (Bath)


Cann, Jamie
Foster, Michael Jabez (Hastings)


Caplin, Ivor
Foster, Michael J (Worcester)






Gapes, Mike
McCabe, Steve


Gardiner, Barry
McCartney, Rt Hon Ian (Makerfield)


George, Andrew (St Ives)



George, Bruce (Walsall S)
McDonagh, Siobhain


Gerrard, Neil
Macdonald, Calum


Gibson, Dr Ian
McDonnell, John


Gilroy, Mrs Linda
McFall, John


Godman, Dr Norman A
McGuire, Mrs Anne


Godsiff, Roger
McIsaac, Shona


Goggins, Paul
Mackinlay, Andrew


Golding, Mrs Llin
Maclennan, Rt Hon Robert


Gordon, Mrs Eileen
McNamara, Kevin


Griffiths, Jane (Reading E)
Mactaggart, Fiona


Griffiths, Nigel (Edinburgh S)
McWalter, Tony


Griffiths, Win (Bridgend)
McWilliam, John


Grocott, Bruce
Mahon, Mrs Alice


Grogan, John
Mallaber, Judy


Hall, Patrick (Bedford)
Marsden, Gordon (Blackpool S)


Hamilton, Fabian (Leeds NE)
Marsden, Paul (Shrewsbury)


Hanson, David
Marshall, David (Shettleston)


Harris, Dr Evan
Marshall, Jim (Leicester S)


Heal, Mrs Sylvia
Marshall-Andrews, Robert


Healey, John
Maxton, John


Heath, David (Somerton & Frome)
Meacher, Rt Hon Michael


Hepburn, Stephen
Meale, Alan


Heppell, John
Merron, Gillian


Hesford, Stephen
Michie, Bill (Shef'ld Heeley)


Hill, Keith
Michie, Mrs Ray (Argyll & Bute)


Hinchliffe, David
Miller, Andrew


Hood, Jimmy
Mitchell, Austin


Hope, Phil
Moffatt, Laura


Howells, Dr Kim
Moonie, Dr Lewis


Hoyle, Lindsay
Moore, Michael


Hughes, Ms Beverley (Stretford)
Moran, Ms Margaret


Hughes, Simon (Southwark N)
Morgan, Alasdair (Galloway)


Hurst, Alan
Morgan, Ms Julie (Cardiff N)


Iddon, Dr Brian
Morley, Elliot


Illsley, Eric
Morris, Rt Hon Ms Estelle (B'ham Yardley)


Ingram, Rt Hon Adam



Jackson, Helen (Hillsborough)
Morris, Rt Hon Sir John (Aberavon)


Jamieson, David



Jenkins, Brian
Mountford, Kali


Johnson, Alan (Hull W & Hessle)
Mullin, Chris


Johnson, Miss Melanie (Welwyn Hatfield)
Murphy, Denis (Wansbeck)



Murphy, Rt Hon Paul (Torfaen)


Jones, Rt Hon Barry (Alyn)
Naysmith, Dr Doug


Jones, Mrs Fiona (Newark)
Oaten, Mark


Jones, Helen (Warrington N)
O'Brien, Bill (Normanton)


Jones, Ms Jenny (Wolverh'ton SW)
O'Brien, Mike (N Warks)



O'Hara, Eddie


Jones, Dr Lynne (Selly Oak)
Olner, Bill


Jones, Martyn (Clwyd S)
O'Neill, Martin


Jowell, Rt Hon Ms Tessa
Öpik, Lembit


Kaufman, Rt Hon Gerald
Organ, Mrs Diana


Keeble, Ms Sally
Pearson, Ian


Keen, Alan (Feltham & Heston)
Pendry, Tom


Kelly, Ms Ruth
Perham, Ms Linda


Kemp, Fraser
Pickthall, Colin


Kennedy, Rt Hon Charles (Ross Skye & Inverness W)
Pike, Peter L



Plaskitt, James


Kennedy, Jane (Wavertree)
Pollard, Kerry


Khabra, Piara S
Pond, Chris


Kidney, David
Pope, Greg


Kilfoyle, Peter
Pound, Stephen


King, Ms Oona (Bethnal Green)
Prentice, Ms Bridget (Lewisham E)


Kumar, Dr Ashok
Primarolo, Dawn


Laxton, Bob
Prosser, Gwyn


Leslie, Christopher
Purchase, Ken


Levitt, Tom
Quin, Rt Hon Ms Joyce


Lewis, Ivan (Bury S)
Quinn, Lawrie


Linton, Martin
Radice, Rt Hon Giles


Livsey, Richard
Rammell, Bill


Llwyd, Elfyn
Rapson, Syd


Lock, David
Reed, Andrew (Loughborough)


Love, Andrew
Rendel, David


McAvoy, Thomas
Roche, Mrs Barbara





Rogers, Allan
Sutcliffe, Gerry


Rooker, Rt Hon Jeff
Taylor, Rt Hon Mrs Ann (Dewsbury)


Rooney, Terry



Ross, Ernie (Dundee W)
Taylor, Ms Dari (Stockton S)


Rowlands, Ted
Taylor, David (NW Leics)


Ruane, Chris
Taylor, Matthew (Truro)


Ruddock, Joan
Thomas, Gareth R (Harrow W)


Russell, Bob (Colchester)
Timms, Stephen


Russell, Ms Christine (Chester)
Tipping, Paddy


Ryan, Ms Joan
Todd, Mark


Salter, Martin
Tonge, Dr Jenny


Sanders, Adrian
Touhig, Don


Sawford, Phil
Trickett, Jon


Sedgemore, Brian
Turner, Dennis (Wolverh'ton SE)


Shaw Jonathan
Turner, Dr Desmond (Kemptown)


Sheerman, Barry
Turner, Neil (Wigan)


Shipley, Ms Debra
Twigg, Stephen (Enfield)


Short, Rt Hon Clare
Tyler, Paul


Simpson, Alan (Nottingham S)
Tynan, Bill


Singh, Marsha
Wallace, James


Skinner, Dennis
Ward, Ms Claire


Smith, Rt Hon Andrew (Oxford E)
Watts, David


Smh, Angela (Basildon)
Webb, Steve


Smith, Miss Geraldine (Morecambe & Lunesdale)
Welsh, Andrew



White, Brian


Smith, Jacqui (Redditch)
Whitehead, Dr Alan


Smith, John (Glamorgan)
Williams, Rt Hon Alan (Swansea W)


Smith, Llew (Blaenau Gwent)



Smith, Sir Robert (W Ab'd'ns)
Williams, Alan W (E Carmarthen)


Snape, Peter
Williams, Mrs Betty (Conwy)


Soley, Clive
Willis, Phil


Southworth, Ms Helen
Winnick, David


Squire, Ms Rachel
Winterton, Ms Rosie (Doncaster C)


Starkey, Dr Phyllis
Wise, Audrey


Steinberg, Gerry
Wood, Mike


Stewart, David (Inverness E)
Woolas, Phil


Stinchcombe, Paul
Worthington, Tony


Stoate, Dr Howard
Wright, Anthony D (Gt Yarmouth)


Strang, Rt Hon Dr Gavin
Wyatt, Derek


Stringer, Graham
Tellers for the Noes:


Stuart, Ms Gisela
Mr. Kevin Hughes and


Stunell, Andrew
Mr. Mike Hall.

Question accordingly negatived.

New clause 3

EXPIRY OF PART VII

'.—(1) This Part shall, by virtue of this subsection, cease to have effect at the end of the period of one year beginning with the day on which it is brought into force.

(2) The Secretary of State may by order provide that a provision of this Part shall cease to have effect.'.—[Mr. McNamara.]

Brought up, and read the First time.

Mr. McNamara: I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: With this it will be convenient to discuss the following: New clause 8—Expiry and revival (No. 2)—

'(1) This Act shall (subject to subsection (2)) cease to have effect at the end of the period of five years beginning with the day on which the Act is brought into force.

(2) The Secretary of State may by order provide—

(a) that a provision of this Act which is in force (whether or not by virtue of this subsection) shall continue in force for a specific period not exceeding five years;
(b) that a provision of this Act shall cease to have effect;


(c) that a provision of this Act which is not in force (whether or not by virtue of this subsection) shall come into force and remain in force for a specified period not exceeding five years.

(3) An order under subsection (2) shall be made by statutory instrument; and no such order shall be made unless a draft of the statutory instrument containing the order has been laid before, and approved by a resolution of, each House of Parliament.'.

Amendment No. 143, in page 51, line 38, leave out Clause 111.

Mr. McNamara: Later this evening, we shall debate the prevention of terrorism order for the last time, and my new clause draws attention to that. The lifespan of part VII, which deals specifically with Northern Ireland, is five years. That seems unacceptably long in the absence of a debate, which we have had in the past, to decide whether these extraordinary powers, or some of them, should be reconsidered or continued or repealed.
My new clause proposes that part VII have effect for only a year, with the provision that the Secretary of State should be able to lift certain of its requirements at times. I do not believe that that is unreasonable. Had I had the time and thought more carefully, I should have drafted it to include a renewal order so that we could consider that matter. Unfortunately, I did not do so. Even so, we have the Government's undertaking that there will be an annual independent review of the Bill's operation, but we have not had an undertaking that the review will be debated. Nor have we had an undertaking that notice will be taken of the reviewers' suggestions on additions or deletions. In the past, proposed deletions have nearly always been ignored and proposed additions have always been seized on and included.
If the Government have related part VII specially and specifically to Northern Ireland, it should be subject to statutory review. Northern Ireland is, sadly, an unhappy part of the country at present and specific legislation deals with the problems there. We hope that those problems will go away and that the Good Friday agreement will be implemented, but we should nevertheless examine the legislation, and very much so.
An associated matter has been a disappointment. The criminal law review in Northern Ireland has progressed slowly. My right hon. Friend the Minister of State, Northern Ireland Office has said that he hoped that it would be completed either when we were dealing with the later stages of consideration of the Bill or before Easter, possibly in the other place. I do not hold it against him that it has not been completed, but I am concerned that we are passing legislation without having a proper opportunity to review it and without any undertakings being given about the Government's attitude to that review and what changes will be made in respect of part VII. That is the burden of my case.
We are considering serious legislation specific to one part of the United Kingdom and the precedent has been that we examine such legislation every year. We should do so again. If my new clause does not meet the precise requirements, I am happy to leave it to my right hon. Friend to draft a fresh one for the other place, but I believe that the House would abdicate its responsibility if it did not at least provide for renewal orders relating to the implementation of the Bill.
I believe that in happier days, when this legislation was first considered, we hoped that the Good Friday agreement would be implemented, and that—apart from

having to deal with a few dissidents—the legislation might disappear for ever. That may happen—I hope that it will—but, just in case it does not, we should have an opportunity to examine the way in which the legislation is dealt with, especially the parts introduced as a result of the terrible Omagh bombing.

Mr. Simon Hughes: The new clause tabled by the hon. Member for Hull, North (Mr. McNamara), whom I am happy to follow, relates specifically to part VII—the Northern Ireland section that we debated in Committee with the Minister and some of our colleagues.
I told the Minister and the Committee that it was our considered view that it was right for us to look forward to the early conclusion of special powers for Northern Ireland and right for those powers to be reviewed regularly on the basis of a report and the agreement of Parliament, but that we were happy for the end of the period concerned to remain unspecified for the moment. There is a backstop of five years. The Government would have to return to Parliament again if other existing legislation were repealed or changed once this law was enacted. We felt, however, that there must be a degree of flexibility.
As the Minister may remember, since the Committee stage, I have visited Northern Ireland to talk to people about, specifically, aspects of the Bill that relate to the Province. I was pleasantly surprised and encouraged by the widespread view across the political parties and the community divides, and among senior members of the police service—and elsewhere—that action should be taken as quickly as possible to restore the normal processes of the court structure: hearings, trials and police procedures. They hoped that that would happen much sooner than in five years' time. No one argued to the contrary, which I found encouraging.
New clause 8 concerns a linked but different issue. We have what is, in effect, renewable legislation. The Bill will introduce permanent legislation. Even after the courteous and reasonable debate in which we engaged with the Minister in Committee, my hon. Friends and I are not persuaded that we should move, all in one go, to a UK-wide Bill of a permanent nature.
We are persuaded—indeed, we have always argued the case; I have argued it since I became my party's home affairs spokesman—that there should be UK-wide legislation, rather than legislation treating Northern Ireland separately from Great Britain. One of the reasons why I always thought that the old legislation was improper, and never voted for it, was the fact that it contained exclusion clauses, and treated citizens of one country as though they could be compartmentalised. We consider UK-wide legislation to be entirely proper, as the Minister knows.
However, we consider it dangerous to table a Bill that is not just UK-wide but much more far-reaching, without giving Parliament a chance to bring it back to see how it is being implemented. New clause 8 suggests that, once enacted, the Act should cease to have effect five years after enactment without Parliament's approving its continuance. Its maximum length would therefore be the maximum length of a Parliament, although a Government could return to it before that. We think that such a safeguard is necessary.
I will not go into details, but we need to be particularly attentive about two actions that we are taking in the Bill. We are creating permanent UK anti-terrorism legislation, and we are extending its remit. We will discuss definitions later, but I am not talking just about what is defined as terrorism; I am talking about the definition of the powers given to the authorities of the state—the police, the courts, and others.
Exceptional measures—steps towards the removal of liberty and the increasing of state powers—should be taken with great care in a democratic country. We have been careful and we are careful, but we are in danger of unwittingly not being careful if we suddenly sign up to legislation that will come back only if whichever party is in power brings it back, or if a majority in the House wants to bring it back. The new clause would enable all Members, from all parts of the United Kingdom, to debate the issue.
Let me say a word particularly to my Northern Ireland colleagues, from whose expertise—exemplified by the contributions of the hon. Member for Fermanagh and South Tyrone (Mr. Maginnis)—we benefited during much of the Committee stage. Until Northern Ireland is at peace, which we pray will be soon, we must ensure that all of us—not just a corner of the House in which Northern Ireland Members talk to each other and to Northern Ireland Ministers—can learn from their experience.
I think that subsection (2) deals with one of the two objections raised by the Minister in Committee. He suggested that the requirement for the Act as a whole to be brought back within five years was an inflexible tool. Subsection (2) would allow certain parts of the Act to be continued, certain parts to be discontinued, and certain parts that had been discontinued to be brought back. It is not inflexible: it is possible to look at each and every clause and to say, "This is right" and, "This is wrong."
Of course, if we wanted to amend the legislation, there would have to be a process allowing that, but there is no reason why we could not do what we are doing today—coincidentally. There is no reason why we should not include in our debate both a Bill to amend existing legislation and an order to continue or discontinue part of it. It would be logical to do both at the same time.
The Minister argued, perfectly reasonably, that we might need to act more quickly. In Committee, I said that I had been advised, and feared, that the Bill as drafted might contain breaches of the European convention on human rights, and that, if the European Court made a finding similar to its finding in the Bulger case in December, the Home Secretary would have to come to the House and announce a change in the law, or the procedure.
That is, of course, true. At any stage, if there is a ruling against the Government that relates to legislation, the Government must come back to the House. Let me point out to the Minister, however, that the new clause does not suggest that the legislation can come back only every five years; it provides a backstop. Of course, if we find that, despite the Home Secretary's declaration on the front of the Bill, the Bill breaches the convention, it will have to come back earlier; but I hope that members of all parties will learn the lesson that we all painfully learned in two ways two years ago.
After the Omagh bombing, which was painful enough in itself, we returned to the House for two days in September 1998 to pass yet more emergency legislation.

That was not good legislating, as anyone involved will recall. We legislated in haste, and, as Ministers confirmed in Committee, much of the legislation has never been used. Perhaps none of it has. That is the practical implication of what was done. Sometimes—indeed, nearly always—it is better to have a opportunity to consider, to reflect on what needs to be done and to take advice. In the case of this Bill, we have taken account of a report by Lord Lloyd of Berwick, and have consulted the Northern Ireland Human Rights Commission, which was established by a governmental statutory body. It is certainly the commission's view that we should not have permanent legislation.
Interestingly, in all my discussions in Northern Ireland last month, and without naming any individual—I talked to very senior representatives of the relevant parts of society—no one argued for permanent legislation. They said not only that there should not be permanent legislation in Northern Ireland—let alone in Great Britain—but that there was benefit in reviewable and renewable legislation.
One person convincingly put the following argument to me. If we have special powers and there is a group in the community that feels that it is oppressed, troubled, or likely to be the targets of those powers, it is much better for the law and order agency—the police or armed services—to be able to say that those will be reviewed in time and are not a permanent part of the state, than for people to feel that there will be no opportunity for a review that is apart from the forces of law and order.

Mr. Mike Gapes: The hon. Gentleman referred to the Omagh bombing. Does he not accept that, at the time of the bombing, there was a great desire among the British and Irish Governments to work together as far as possible and to ensure that legislation on both sides of the border was consistent, so that people could not play the game of moving from one side to the other? Does he accept that that was one of the motivations that led to the legislation being introduced? Whether it was good legislation or not, does he at least accept that, at the time, the motives for introducing it were, effectively, to try to combat terrorist organisations that used the different jurisdictions to avoid detection or arrest?

Mr. Hughes: I accept that. The hon. Gentleman is right.

Mr. McNamara: Does the hon. Gentleman accept that the courts in the Republic are now very reluctant to use that particular legislation and are not accepting the word merely of a senior police officer? They are looking for other things and more corroboration. We should not legislate in this country just to meet the needs of the Republic of Ireland. He might remember that, when these matters were discussed, Downing street's official spokesman issued statements saying that we did not need stronger legislation, as we already had all that we needed. All that we were doing was legislating to please the Irish Government and, incidentally, the Home Office and the Saudis.

Mr. Hughes: The hon. Gentleman is right. Both points raise an important issue. I was going to make a linked point. There is every benefit in being in touch with the Irish Government and the Irish Parliament and knowing


what they are thinking. There is clearly every benefit in compatible systems north and south of the border to deal with people who can easily go back and forth across the border every day.
However, one of the reasons why we would be wrong to enact permanent legislation is that, at this very moment in Ireland, a review of the constitutional provisions is going on. It has not been concluded. It has touched on the Disqualifications Bill, which we considered in December and January.
There is some sense both in retaining independence, so that we can do what we think is best for this country, and in at least trying to understand what is happening elsewhere and not anticipating something: the Republic may come to a different conclusion as a result of the review. The unanimous view in Northern Ireland was that we should not have permanent legislation. One of the things that seem to strengthen that case is that there is a review of the legislation in the Republic and that it would be helpful to be able to take changes into account. If we have permanent legislation on the statute book, by definition, we will not be able to look at the matter again in the light of what is going on in Ireland.
6.45 pm
One of the places that I went to when I was in Northern Ireland again recently was South Armagh, which has suffered as much as anywhere, if not more. There were clearly differences of view about some of the details of what is going on in terms of the whole settlement process in Northern Ireland, but on one thing there was no controversy: if we had an exceptional set of powers—which are clearly needed at the moment—the people of Northern Ireland, their representatives in this Parliament and in the Assembly should be able to play a part in discussing how they should be continued.
Once we put something permanent on to the statute book, the chance of being able to have such a debate—involving Members in the Northern Ireland Assembly, listening to people in local government in Northern Ireland, talking to the Royal Ulster Constabulary—goes. It is locked in, and only the Government can press a button that unlocks it.
I ask colleagues on both sides of the House, and the Government in particular, to think again about their view that we do not need reviewable legislation. The Minister offered a concession, or came forward with a proposal in Committee that was welcome—a periodic report on the legislation will be laid before Parliament, as happens now—but it does not go far enough. There is all the difference in the political world between a report that we can read and legislation that has to come to Parliament to continue, or to be altered. I urge the House as strongly as I can to vote for our new clause, in the hope that we get terrorism legislation that Parliament can keep regularly under review at least once every Parliament.

Dr. Norman A. Godman: I have some sympathy for the observations of the hon. Member for Southwark, North and Bermondsey (Mr. Hughes) on the need for impermanent legislation. He called it renewable legislation.
I support the view of my hon. Friend the Member for Hull, North (Mr. McNamara). I listened carefully to what he said. He talked about an independent review, whereas the hon. Gentleman talked about a periodic report. I was not on the Committee, but an independent review sounds more powerful than a periodic report. If an independent review has been promised, that is reassuring.
I agree with my hon. Friend that such a review should be debated in the House, so that all sorts of concerns can be raised. There are some powerful elements in this part. I mention three at a glance: clauses 97, 98 and 99, which deal with the independent assessor of military complaints procedures, the code of practice on police and Army powers and the code of practice on video recording respectively. A debate such as that mentioned by my hon. Friend would give us the opportunity to voice concerns about the imperfections of those clauses, or about where they could be strengthened or modified.
It may not be feasible in parliamentary terms, but my view is that it would be better to submit such an independent report to a Select Committee for examination. A three-hour or five-hour debate in this place does not allow for the cross-examination of Ministers that a Select Committee hearing allows.
With respect—it certainly does not apply to my right hon. Friend the Minister of State, Northern Ireland Office—I have heard Ministers brush aside questions on important issues from the Opposition and others. That cannot be done within the framework of a Select Committee investigation. I am not suggesting for one moment that he conducted himself in that way when I questioned him, but I make a serious point. It is one that I made in relation to the Sierra Leone affair. I told the Foreign Secretary at the time that it was good that he had offered to make a statement from the Dispatch Box, but that it would be better for all concerned that that matter should be subjected to a Select Committee inquiry.

Mr. Simon Hughes: I hope that the hon. Gentleman did not think that I was arguing that we should not have an annual report or an opportunity for the matter to be taken before a Select Committee. The question is whether we also have the ability over a longer period—five years as opposed to every year—for Parliament to be able to make a positive decision that it wants the legislation, whole or in part, to go on. They are not incompatible.

Dr. Godman: I am grateful for that clarification and reassurance. I thought that I was listening intently, but I must have strayed a little.
If we are to have independent reviews, I believe that a Select Committee is a better instrument for monitoring the implementation of legislation, especially controversial legislation such as this Bill. Such legislation ought to be renewable rather than permanent.
The hon. Member for Southwark, North and Bermondsey mentioned that he had been to South Armagh recently. I visited a police station in the constituency of the hon. Member for Belfast, East (Mr. Robinson) where the RUC officers are working extremely hard to develop good community relations in a nationalist community. It is essential that legislation does not impede that sort of remarkably fine work.
I am asking for renewable rather than permanent legislation.

Mr. Shepherd: I commend to the Government the purposes behind the new clauses. The Bill, as we all understand, gives extraordinary powers to the Executive. It is appropriate to have what is, effectively, a sunset clause—perhaps the Government can draft something suitable.
I am a believer in sunset clauses. The House has too little opportunity on a general range of legislation to review its workings under the necessity of having to justify it. A sunset clause gives the Government an opportunity to explain their stewardship of these extraordinary powers. I say this gently because it is important that where such powers are available to the Executive they must justify their exercise of them. I am grateful to the hon. Members for Hull, North (Mr. McNamara) and for Southwark, North and Bermondsey (Mr. Hughes) for giving the House the opportunity to pause to consider an important point.

Mr. Lidington: No one in the House would quarrel with the call from my hon. Friend the Member for Aldridge-Brownhills (Mr. Shepherd) for the Executive, whichever party happens to be in government, to be held to account for the exercise of the powers given to them by counter-terrorist legislation. These are far-reaching powers.
The debate is about the most appropriate mechanisms for holding the Executive to account and subjecting Ministers to sustained questioning over their role as custodians of the legislation. The hon. Member for Southwark, North and Bermondsey (Mr. Hughes) and my hon. Friend the Member for Aldridge-Brownhills have set out eloquently the case for the sunset clause.
I should mention the new clause moved by the hon. Member for Hull, North (Mr. McNamara). The Opposition are satisfied that the provisions already incorporated in the Bill in clause 11 I provide adequate safeguards in respect of the special powers for Northern Ireland, and Northern Ireland alone. We are not persuaded by the hon. Gentleman's argument for new clause 3.
New clause 8 was spoken to by the Liberal Democrats. The arguments for the sunset clause were powerful and well put and it would be wrong to dismiss them, but there is a compelling counter-argument. The first Prevention of Terrorism (Temporary Provisions) Bill was introduced by Lord Jenkin, then Home Secretary, in the immediate aftermath of the Birmingham bombings. Probably everybody assumed at the time that the powers would be needed only in respect of a crisis arising from terrorist violence in Northern Ireland, perhaps spilling over to the mainland of Great Britain. Everybody assumed that, within a few years, it would be possible to revert to normal criminal justice powers and legislation without the need for the special provisions. Sadly, that has not been the case. As the hon. Members for Fermanagh and South Tyrone (Mr. Maginnis) and for Belfast, East (Mr. Robinson) can testify, the need to be vigilant against terrorism in Northern Ireland remains to this day.
Even if there were to be an established and enduring peace in Northern Ireland, there still remains a case for permanent counter-terrorist legislation. The first recommendation of Lord Lloyd when he summarised the conclusions of his review of counter-terrorist legislation was that
When lasting peace is established in Northern Ireland there will continue to be a need for permanent anti-terrorist legislation.

He went on to argue—we will come to this in later amendments—that new legislation should apply not just to violence related to Northern Ireland but to terrorism throughout the United Kingdom, covering domestic as well as international terrorism.
I fear that organised and ruthless terrorism is not some temporary feature of the political landscape but is endemic. We have seen examples of middle eastern terrorism which has, on occasions, spilled over into the United Kingdom and other European countries and we have seen what has happened in Tokyo. I can recall that, at the time of the Gulf war in the early 1990s, there were acute fears in this country that Saddam Hussein, in order to further his campaign, would seek to sponsor or promote acts of terrorism in allied capital cities so as to try to induce the populations there to withdraw support from the United Nation's alliance which was confronting him over Kuwait.

Mr. Gordon Marsden: I have been listening carefully to what the hon. Gentleman said about the assumptions in the 1970s when the prevention of terrorism legislation was introduced in the wake of the Birmingham bombings and his views on the on-going problem of terrorism. I do not disagree with him. However, in the context of new clause 3, is that not an argument, if not for a sunset clause, for some form of subsequent review of whether the powers as cast should be changed, revised or muted? After all, terrorism, even if it is a permanent feature of the landscape, is likely to change its form.

7 pm

Mr. Lidington: I agree with the hon. Gentleman on the need for regular and thorough reviews of the legislation, but I doubt whether new clause 3 provides the best mechanism for such reviews. The Government have offered us an annual review. In Committee, the Minister said that the Government were minded to appoint an independent examiner—someone in the tradition of Mr. John Rowe and Lord Colville—to examine from an outsider's perspective the operation of legislation and to report to the Government. I should hope that, subsequently, the Government would ensure that the examiner's report was fully debated by both Houses of Parliament.

Mr. Alan Simpson: Does the hon. Gentleman not recognise that one of the difficulties in Lord Lloyd's analysis of the matter was the failure to explore the difference between permanent counterterrorism legislation and renewable counter-terrorism legislation? The latter would maintain the House's rights and responsibilities to deal with the matter in primary legislation, and would also allow the Government of the day to get out of the other trap. In a world in which the character of terrorism changes as quickly as economic circumstances change, if we try to deal with the matter in permanent legislation, we will inevitably be forced towards adopting much too broad a definition of terrorism, thereby casting long and dark shadows over the nature of democratic society and open government. A sunset clause would get us out of that predicament.

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Michael J. Martin): Order. That intervention was far too long. The hon. Member for Aylesbury (Mr. Lidington) could also perhaps deal with that matter in the debate on the next group of amendments.

Mr. Lidington: The difficulty that I have with the argument being made, quite honourably, by the hon. Members for Nottingham, South (Mr. Simpson) and for Blackpool, South (Mr. Marsden) is that we could end up deluding ourselves into thinking that we were supporting counter-terrorism powers that were in a realistic sense temporary.
We have to acknowledge that the character of the international political environment in which British Ministers, British security and intelligence agencies and British police officers have to take their decisions has changed, and that it has probably changed irrevocably. It has been a change for the worse, but we have to come to terms with that change. There will be a need for us not only to remain vigilant about how Ministers and officials exercise the powers that they have been given in statute, but to ensure that our legislative safeguards are kept up to date, so that we are able to respond to what I fear might be the proliferation among terrorist groups of yet more deadly weapons.
Professor Wilkinson's report, which was appended to Lord Lloyd's, mentions the fact that, in the next few decades, chemical, nuclear or biological weapons might fall into the hands of terrorist groups which are prepared, if not to use them as such, to use them as instruments of blackmail and coercion. We have also to ensure that our legal arrangements are kept up to date with whatever new technologies become available to terrorist groups.
The best way of approaching that issue is to build on the process of annual review, which the Government have offered to us; to ensure that Parliament has the opportunity to demand of Ministers that they introduce amending legislation as and when it is demonstrated to be necessary; and, as the hon. Member for Greenock and Inverclyde (Dr. Godman) said, to use the Select Committee system that is available to us. I should certainly hope that not only the Intelligence and Security Committee, which would have an important role to play in the matter, but the Select Committees on Home Affairs and on Northern Ireland Affairs would interest themselves in the detail of how those powers are exercised in future.
Coupled with the formal procedure of annual review and annual report that the Government have already offered, the Select Committees—with the interplay of question and answer that they allow, and their capacity to subject Ministers to sustained interrogation, rather than simply allowing them to make an introductory speech, and then wind up the debate, giving way as frequently or infrequently as they choose—are a better way of approaching the matter.
For those reasons, I am not prepared to support this group of amendments.

Mr. Charles Clarke: This has been a useful debate. As hon. Members on both sides of the House have acknowledged, the issue was debated very fully in Committee. I am delighted to return to the subject now.
New clause 3 and amendment No. 143, tabled by my hon. Friend the Member for Hull, North (Mr. McNamara), would time-limit the Northern Ireland-specific provisions to one year. New clause 8, tabled by the hon. Member for Southwark, North and Bermondsey (Mr. Hughes), would provide for the expiry and revival of the Bill every five years. That provision is identical to the hon. Gentleman's new clause 2 in Committee, which we debated for 45 minutes, on 8 February.
I shall deal with the detail of the two specific proposals. First, however, I should like to make a couple of general points about the role of Parliament in all this.
As has been generously acknowledged by various speakers, the Government have sought to respond to the concerns expressed on Second Reading by establishing an annual report process, which was not in the Bill on Second Reading. We listened to comments made by hon. Members on both sides of the House, and felt that there was merit in the case for producing an annual report.
I can also confirm that we did, indeed, commit ourselves to that report being prepared by an independent person. The document would not be internal and secret but out in the public domain. I should like to place that commitment on record now—as I did in Committee—as it is helpful to do so.
It is important that we should have a little discussion about Parliament's role in dealing with this form of accountability. The hon. Member for Aldridge-Brownhills (Mr. Shepherd) used a good phrase—explanatory stewardship—to describe the role, and he was quite right about that. The question is how best stewardship can be explained. A wide range of parliamentary devices is available. My hon. Friend the Member for Greenock and Inverclyde mentioned Select Committees, which are the first possibility.
As all hon. Members who have served on a Select Committee will know, the Select Committee process can indeed be far more effective than a general process in the House. One of my first duties after being elected to the House was to serve as a member of the Treasury Committee. I am sure that the Governor of the Bank of England would agree that the regular interrogation to which the Committee subjected him and the Monetary Policy Committee on their policy on setting interest rates was much more rigorous than a regular debate in the House, or some other process, would have been. As the hon. Member for Aylesbury (Mr. Lidington) said, we also have the Home Affairs Committee, the Northern Ireland Affairs Committee and the Intelligence and Security Committee. They are an important part of the process. The House also has the capacity for debate in a variety of forms—a short debate on the Adjournment, or a more substantial debate, such as we are having today.
Contrary to the comments of the hon. Member for Southwark, North and Bermondsey, it is not the provision that will serve as a backstop, but this Parliament. If ever one wanted evidence that this Parliament has been a backstop in our consideration of such issues, one would only have to study the way in which legislation has been dealt with, often very rapidly, by the House. Although I take the point about consideration, the suggestion that there is any inflexibility in Parliament's ability to consider new legislation as circumstances change is simply not correct. It is a fact that over the years—in this as in other matters—Parliament has shown a tremendous readiness to


respond rapidly to the issues raised by changing events such as judgments by the European Court of Human Rights, or by more dramatic events such as bombs and explosions, which require issues to be dealt with differently.
My response to the general discussion—before moving on to the particulars of the two proposals—is that it is quite wrong to describe Parliament as inflexible in its ability to address such questions. The reverse is true: Parliament has tremendous flexibility to achieve by a variety of different means the explanatory stewardship suggested by the hon. Member for Aldridge-Brownhills. It would be unwise to opt for one constitutional straitjacket in seeking to address it.

Mr. Simon Hughes: Of course there is the flexibility that the Minister described. Can he confirm that clause 124, which provides for a report, does not necessarily trigger a parliamentary yes or no process? More important, looking back over any number of years, the two circumstances in which the Government come to the House to seek changes are when the are obliged by a court judgment to do so or when they are seeking more power. Governments do not readily seek to give up power even when there is a large clamour outside telling them they should do so.

Mr. Clarke: I am not sure that that analysis is correct. In certain circumstances Governments seek the withdrawal of power as a result of events changing. [Interruption.] My right hon. Friend the Minister of State, Northern Ireland Office suggests that that has happened recently in respect of the EPA.
The amendments tabled by my hon. Friend the Member for Hull, North are aimed at time-limiting the Northern Ireland- specific provisions to one year from the date on which they are brought into force. There would be no power to continue the provisions beyond that point—nor could a provision be brought back into force if it had been lapsed by order.
I shall set out again the Government's position on the Northern Ireland-specific measures. I am happy to do so as it is very important. I emphasise strongly that the Government wish to move to the position where there are no Northern Ireland-specific measures. The aim of the Bill is to have a UK-wide approach to combating terrorism. We remain strongly committed to this—indeed the Good Friday agreement requires us to remove the emergency powers in Northern Ireland as soon as the security situation allows it. That is our intention and desire.
My right hon. Friend the Minister of State made the point that the test of a normalised society is to achieve that common basis. That is what we seek to do. It is an important policy consideration.
If I thought that the security situation would allow for that in one year's time, I would be delighted to accept the new clause. Of course I cannot predict the security situation in a year's time—and neither can anyone else. The key is flexibility. Clause 111, which amendment No. 143 seeks to remove, time-limits the part VII provisions to five years. It allows powers to be switched off by order and to be revived if it is proved they are needed.
Let me deal with a specific point made by my hon. Friend the Member for Hull, North. He suggested that the temporary Northern Ireland provisions would remain on

the statute book for five years without the need for parliamentary approval. Clause 111 provides that part VII lapses after 12 months unless renewed by an affirmative resolution order for further periods of 12 months, up to a maximum lifespan of five years. That renewal will be informed by the annual report in all the ways that we know, and on the operation of the Act under clause 124. So there is a parliamentary approval process.
Although I sympathise with the thrust of what my hon. Friend said, his amendments would tie the Government's hands to a degree that I cannot accept. There have been too many events reminding us of the terrible situation.
My hon. Friend referred to the criminal review. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State assures me that it will be published soon, so as to enable further debate and consideration of these issues.
I hope that my hon. Friend will accept my assurances that the Government remain committed to dispensing with the part VII powers as soon as it is safe to do so and will not press his amendments further.
7.15 pm
We reject the proposal in the Liberal Democrat new clause for the same reasons that we rejected it in Committee. Lord Lloyd concluded:
once lasting peace has been established in Northern Ireland, there will continue to be a need for permanent counter-terrorist legislation to deal with the threat of international and domestic terrorism.
I referred in Committee, and I shall do so again today, to the extract from pages 4 to 5 of his report, in which he sets out the reasons—as clearly and eloquently as anyone has been able to do here. At paragraph 1.20, he states:
From my interviews with the police, the Security Service and other counter-terrorism specialists in the UK and overseas, I am convinced it would be a mistake—indeed, that it would be folly—to assume that a few years of relative freedom from acts of international terrorism here meant that the threat had largely gone away. There are two reasons for that view.
First, to measure the threat merely in terms of the number of planned attacks which have been carried out in the UK would be to ignore the substantial effort which goes on, largely in secret, to avert such incidents. Evidence which I have seen and heard, though I cannot set it out here, persuades me that, although the immediate threat is low, international terrorist groups continue to seek opportunities to carry out attacks against UK interests, at home and abroad.
The second cause for caution is that developments in world politics and the changing nature of terrorism have made it difficult to predict what the future holds. Chapter 4 of Professor Wilkinson's report deals with some of these factors. Regional and national conflicts which have generated terrorism, or have the potential to do so, will continue throughout the foreseeable future. The complex problems in the Middle East and North Africa will remain the most important factor, not least because of the pronounced anti-Western position adopted by some of the parties involved. As the "weapon of the weak" terrorism is likely to remain an attractive option to those engaged in regional power struggles, facilitated by the ever-increasing international freedom of movement of people, goods and information. The UK, together with some other Western countries, is particularly liable to be caught up in these struggles because of the number of communities of foreign nationals who live, or seek sanctuary, here.
That is a powerful argument. It is why the Government have accepted this central recommendation of the report.
As we said in the consultation paper,
the Government believes that there exists now a clear and present terrorist threat to the UK from a number of fronts and that a terrorist threat is likely to continue to exist for the foreseeable future even when a lasting peace in Northern Ireland is achieved.


It gives me no pleasure to say that I believe that to be a frank assessment of the position on the basis of serious consideration and advice.
We have had so-called temporary provisions on the statute book for 25 years. The time has come to face the fact of terrorism and be ready to deal with it for the foreseeable future. We need to make the powers permanently available, although the fact that those powers are available does not mean that they have to be used.
The Bill removes some of the most extreme powers that have been used in the past, such as internment and exclusion orders, and introduces judicial extensions of detention.
The Human Rights Act 1998 will be fully implemented by the time that the Bill comes into force. That is an important new safeguard.We are providing Parliament with an annual report to allow for full consideration of these issues. I pay tribute to hon. Members on both sides of the House who asked for that provision. There is a full opportunity to discuss the issues in great detail. I am sure that that will continue, and on that basis I hope that my hon. Friend will withdraw his new clause.

Mr. McNamara: I accept what my hon. Friend said about part VII. It is only unfortunate that it does not apply to the rest of the Bill. I beg to ask leave to withdraw the motion.

Motion and clause, by leave, withdrawn.

New Clause 4

RIGHT TO CONSULT SOLICITOR

'.—(1) All persons detained under section 40 of this Act shall be promptly informed of their right to consult privately with a solicitor and to have a solicitor present at all interviews to be conducted under this Act.

(2) All persons wishing to consult a solicitor must be permitted to do so as soon as is reasonably practicable.'.—[Mr. McNamara.]

Brought up, and read the First time.

Mr. McNamara: I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: With this it will be convenient to discuss the following: Amendment No. 173, in clause 40, page 18, line 34, at end insert—
'(3A) Where a person is detained under this section for more than 36 hours, a police officer shall state in writing the reasons for continuing to detain him.'

Government amendments Nos. 60 to 64 and 67 to 69.

Amendment No. 178, in schedule 7, page 109, line 9, at end insert—
'and, subject to paragraph 19, shall be completed and the decision notified to the detained person within four hours of his arrest.'

Government amendments Nos. 70 to 76, 96 to 99, 109 and 116.

Mr. McNamara: The question of legal access is interesting, and it appears to be missing from the Bill. I want to assert the right of detained persons to have access to legal advice promptly, before the questioning starts.
The situation in Northern Ireland is especially problematic, as those arrested in Britain under the Prevention of Terrorism Acts have, over the years, effectively been held under Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1984 conditions. One former head of the Met said that anybody who was arrested under the PTA in his area would always be held under PACE conditions.
The emergency provisions Act contains a provision allowing for deferral of access to a solicitor for up to 48 hours, which was used widely in Northern Ireland until the 1990s and is still occasionally used. Even when a suspect got access to a lawyer, the lawyer was not permitted to stay in the interview with the suspect, as is the case with PACE. There appears to have been no statutory basis for that exclusion, which resulted from Royal Ulster Constabulary policy and had not been subject to judicial review.
The only occasion when the matter arose was in Murray v. United Kingdom, a case in Strasbourg, in which the applicant argued that the exclusion of his lawyer from the interviews constituted a violation of article 6, which concerns the right to a fair trial. The court did not express an opinion on that point, having already found a violation on the basis of deferral of access to Murray's solicitor, combined with the drawing of inferences from his silence. Its attitude to the exclusion of a solicitor is not clear, but it said:
It is of paramount importance for the rights of the defence that an accused has access to a lawyer at the initial stages of police interrogation.

Mr. Bermingham: Does my hon. Friend agree that the current preferred thinking is that the refusal of access to a solicitor during an interview would be a breach of article 6.3 and that the court would rule against us, as it appears that the idea of a fair trial—equality of arms—is paramount and the right exists throughout the rest of the United Kingdom?

Mr. McNamara: If I understood my hon. Friend correctly, I agree.
Article 6.3, which should be enforced, does not appear in the legislation. I seek an undertaking that there will be access to a solicitor. That is implicit in the Bill, but not specific. I tabled the new clause in the hope that, when their Lordships in one place or another read our debates to see what was intended, a statement from the Front Bench will be on the record.

Mr. Harry Cohen: I want to speak mainly to amendments Nos. 173 and 178, although I would also like to say a word about Government amendment No. 64.
Clause 40 concerns arrest without warrant. Liberty issued a briefing note for our Second Reading debate. It said:
The Government intends to retain the arrest powers of the PTA which entitle the police to arrest without warrant anyone who they have reasonable grounds for suspecting. Liberty has long been concerned about the existence and operation of this power and considers that it should not he retained for the following reasons:
it is unnecessary: there is no evidence that the PACE powers of arrest are inadequate.
it is too wide: it permits a police officer to arrest where the person is not suspected of committing any offence …


powers have been used in the past simply as an intelligence gathering device.
These points are particularly important in view of the widened definition of terrorism.
That is quite a critique of the power, on the use of which amendment No. 173 is designed to put only a small restraint.
I am concerned about people being held incommunicado. One of my first cases as a Member of Parliament, in the 1980s, was when a constituent came to my advice surgery and reported that she had been to the police because she thought that her son had disappeared and she wanted to report the fact and get their help to find him, but it later transpired that the police were holding him and had not informed her. That was a dreadful abuse of civil liberties.
The police have increasing powers to hold people, but the rights of both the person detained and the family are very important.

Dr. Godman: I remind my hon. Friend that he dealt with a case involving my nephew, Luke, who was detained for eight hours in a police station in his constituency. He will confirm that my nephew was innocent of any misdemeanour.

Mr. Cohen: I cannot remember all the cases that I have had in 17 years in Parliament, but I am happy that my hon. Friend has put that on the record and that I was able to help his nephew. I am happy to help all my constituents in such circumstances.
Lord Lloyd of Berwick's report on his inquiry into legislation against terrorism—Cm 3420—has been quoted a lot. Paragraph 9.26 on page 48 says:
In England and Wales, whether a person is arrested under PACE or under the PTA, he has the right to consult a solicitor and to have the solicitor present during interview. He is also entitled to have someone he knows informed of his arrest. These rights may be delayed on the authority of a superintendent if he reasonably believes that such communications might be detrimental to the investigation for one or more specified reasons. The maximum period during which a detainee may be held incommunicado corresponds with the length of time for which he may be detained without further authority. Thus, in non-terrorist cases the rights of access may be delayed up to 36 hours whereas a terrorist suspect may be held incommunicado for up to 48 hours. Furthermore, in terrorist cases an officer of Assistant Chief Constable rank or above may order that consultations with a solicitor are to take place within the sight and hearing of a uniformed officer of at least the rank of inspector.
That makes it clear that, in non-terrorist cases, the norm is 36 hours. If the period is to last longer than that, it is not unreasonable that the reason for the delay and denial of rights should be specified. A simple explanation would suffice, perhaps involving the suspicion of terrorism, but some concrete justification should be given and someone should not be kept an extra 12 hours and denied those rights without genuine suspicion. That would subvert PACE, because every case could be treated as a terrorist case and a person detained for an extra 12 hours without anybody being notified.

Mr. Bermingham: Does my hon. Friend agree that, if those games of holding persons incommunicado—the purpose of which is to put pressure on prisoners—are played, those actions would be subject to subsequent

inquiry by the court and, after 2 October, by the European Court of Human Rights? It is ludicrous that we should lose cases because of unnecessary provisions such as the ones before us.

Mr. Cohen: That is a good point. It would not be difficult to give a reason, because the Government's proposals in the legislation against terrorism consultation paper suggest that a written record should be kept of the outcome of the review of the case. Lord Lloyd also made it clear that delay had to be for specified reasons.
Lord Lloyd also pointed out that a survey of those detained under the PTA in Britain in 1989–90 found that legal advice was delayed in some 26 per cent. of cases and there was a delay in informing someone of a person's detention in 44 per cent. of cases. Those are high figures, and I hope that we will not see a return to such wholesale denial of rights. In a sense, the Bill would legalise those delays.
Other hon. Members have mentioned the European Court of Human Rights and its judgment in Murray v. United Kingdom. The court found that the denial of access to a lawyer, when combined with the trial court's right to draw adverse inferences from silence under questioning, violated the detainee's rights under article 6 of the European convention on human rights. Consequently, the circumstances that gave rise to the successful challenge in the Murray case could now arise throughout the United Kingdom. I would like an assurance that the Government have addressed that point so that we will not face similar judgments in future.
Amendment No. 178 seeks to ensure that a detained person has access to his or her family after four hours of detention and that the first review of the case should be completed by then. I admit that the figure of four hours has been plucked out of the air, but a review of the case could reasonably be completed within that time. It would be better than a long time without any proper review and the denial of rights of the person being held.
The amendment would amend the review process. I want to ensure that individual rights are maintained, although that is outside the review process. However, the amendment would build on the existing requirement for a review officer to inform the detained person of his rights as soon as continued detention has been authorised, by adding a requirement that the first review must be completed and the decision notified to the detained person within four hours of his arrest. At that point, the detained person would have to be notified of his rights, otherwise—as far as I can see—he would be left without having been notified of his rights for an indefinite period. The amendment would extend the civil liberties of the person involved.
I am concerned about the drafting of Government amendment No. 64, which is not as tight as I would have hoped. The Government may be able to reconsider in the other place. The amendment repeatedly mentions doing things
as soon as is reasonably practicable.
That is a bland requirement, and no explanation for undue delay need be given. No indication is given of how long that requirement could be. The amendment also states:
The person named must be … a friend of the detained person … a relative, or … a person who is known to the detained person who is likely to take an interest in his welfare.


What if none of those categories applies? For example, people from abroad might have no one in those categories in this country. Much abuse is being heaped on beggars at the moment. If they were taken into a police station under these powers, they might have nobody in those categories available.
The amendment also states:
Where a detained person is transferred from one police station to another, he shall be entitled to exercise the right … in respect of the police station to which he is transferred.
Will that mean that he will be denied those rights at the first police station he is taken to, with the excuse that he will eventually be transferred, thus increasing the delay? It also states that a detained person may
consult a solicitor as soon as is reasonably practicable, privately and at any time.
However, that right is negated later in the amendment, when it provides that
a detained person … may consult a solicitor only in the sight and hearing of a qualified officer.
Bang goes the right to privacy.

Mr. Bermingham: Does my hon. Friend know why is it necessary to put such provisions in the Bill, which will open us up to litigation in the European Court after 2 October, because the European convention on human rights contains the right to private consultation?

Mr. Cohen: That is why we need an explanation of Government amendment No. 64. It also states that
an officer of at least the rank of superintendent may authorise a delay.
It gives a list of reasonable grounds for authorising a delay, but it does not say that an officer must specify the reason on which he relied. In my view, the reason should be put on the record formally and explained to the detained person.
The amendment also states that
the reason shall be recorded as soon as is reasonably practicable.
As I have already said, that is vague and provides no proper time limit.

Mr. Best: What does the term "reasonably practicable" mean in this context? Are reasons supposed to be provided there and then, or later? Is the term meant to carry a notion of fairness? It is an interesting idea.

Mr. Cohen: The phrase could be interpreted in all those ways. That is what is worrying. Given that the police are always busy with crimes, they could say that it was reasonable to delay making a decision on a case, with the result that the person detained could be held a lot longer.
The term is vague. I hope that the Government will at least put time limits on what they consider to be reasonably practicable.
Proposed new subsection (7) states that delays can take place
in the absence of a further authorisation under sub-paragraph (1).
That means that there could be repeated delays in granting rights to a detainee.
I acknowledge that the Government want to improve matters with amendment No. 64, but it is too loosely worded. It needs to be tightened up to ensure that civil liberties are protected.

Mr. Simon Hughes: We support new clause 4, and the amendment tabled by the hon. Member for Leyton and Wanstead (Mr. Cohen) touches on some matters raised in Standing Committee. He alluded to the reasonable suspicion test, which we tried to amend in Committee.
This debate illustrates the main point of the previous debate. There is no great difference between the parties about the fact that permanent legislation may be needed, but what should it contain? The powers of detention, the period for which people can be held in detention, how long they can be held before they can talk to a solicitor, or before their families are told—all those matters must be reviewed in the light of experience. They appear again and again in the Lord Lloyd review and in the annual reviews held at present. There needs to be a more regular review system for the legislation.
The hon. Member for St. Helens, South (Mr. Bermingham) mentioned a matter that the Standing Committee touched on regularly. The law will be changed fundamentally when the Human Rights Act 1998 comes into force in October. Not many people outside the House are aware of it, although it may turn out to be one of this Administration's most important achievements. The fact that that Act is coming down the track should make us sensitive about passing legislation that recent case law suggests may be in breach of it, as the hon. Member for Leyton and Wanstead said.
7.45 pm
The Secretary of State has asserted that the Bill is compatible with the European convention on human rights, but other legal advice states that parts of it are not compatible with the convention. Where case law warning bells ring about periods of detention, the right to see a solicitor and so on, we should err on the side of caution and legality. We should not give excessive power to the authorities, even if we have to revisit the provisions because they are not perfect.
Britain will not be well served, and Parliament's reputation will be spoiled even further among those people who dislike it already, if we are dragged back again to the European Court for breaches of the convention. We must not ignore those warning bells, which are ringing rather loudly.

Mr. McNamara: Is not one of the sad things that we have yet to see the evidence that the Government claim renders the Bill compatible with the convention, despite the number of challenges to that claim?

Mr. Hughes: In Committee, I offered to show the Minister of State my legal advice if he would show us his. I have not seen the Government's legal advice. I have mine with me, and the Minister is welcome to see it.
The hon. Member for Hull, North (Mr. McNamara) makes a good point. On issues such as this, the advice to Government must be placed in the public domain. However, the Government must heed the case law, the European convention on human rights and the Human Rights Act 1998. They must try to share the best advice and


err on the side of caution. Otherwise, they will have to return to the courts to defend this Bill, and what we have warned about today will come to pass in about a year.

Mr. Bermingham: I was not going to speak in this debate, but I wandered into the Chamber to listen to my hon. Friend the Member for Hull, North (Mr. McNamara) who, like me, has had a long involvement in Irish politics in one way or another.
I declare an interest. I am a practising lawyer, and I paid £175 to go on the Bar Council course on human rights legislation. The Human Rights Act 1998 brings the European convention into our domestic law, and is one of the most far-sighted pieces of legislation of my lifetime, and possibly of the previous century. It establishes, once and for all, a person's right to a fair trial. It also establishes equality of arms—as it is phrased—between the rights of an individual and those of the state.
That that has not always been true of our law was especially clear in the 1970s. I served on the Standing Committee that scrutinised the Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1984, when we examined a detained person's rights, and especially that person's right to legal advice and access. The so-called PACE code followed, and it has served us well. If I say that the Court of Appeal has sometimes sought to negate that legislation, and slim down the rights conferred by Parliament, I do so with my tongue in my cheek.
The 1984 Act was far-sighted. One of the cardinal principles of our law has always been the right to legal advice. If it is good enough for the man accused of murder, it is good enough for anybody else. Everybody who is arrested for a domestic crime, save in exceptional circumstances, has almost immediate access to a lawyer. That lawyer has a right to be present throughout the inquiries that are made; he has a right to advise his client whether to say something or not. The laws on the right to silence have changed over the years. Be that as it may, the right of access to a lawyer is at the very heart of our inquisitorial system, which is an accusatorial process when it comes before a court.

Mr. Cohen: My hon. Friend obviously has a lot of experience in this area. How does he feel about denial of privacy, given that the authorities can listen in to the conversation between the person detained and his lawyer?

Mr. Bermingham: My hon. Friend makes a good point, and I will come to it in a moment.
As I said, that right has always been absolute, and people have always been entitled to privacy and integrity. In police stations up and down the land, facilities are available to enable people to have private consultation. The telephones are meant to be secure—there has just been a ruling in a prison case, so the authorities cannot tap telephone calls. There is another case going before the House of Lords, and if that does not succeed before 2 October, it will inevitably go to Europe, where it will succeed. Listening in to telephone calls is an invasion of human rights, and interferes with the equality of arms.
The European Court of Human Rights is not just a court for the European Union. It is for the whole of Europe, and stretches across some 26 countries.

Mr. McNamara: Forty-one.

Mr. Bermingham: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for that. The tests and standards are meant to be the same throughout.
Why should Northern Ireland be different? Why should there be a class of case in which there is not the right for a lawyer to be present at an interview? I do not want to vote on this; I just want the Minister of State to say, "Okay, we'll put it in." The Bill can be amended. What do we lose by including the new clause and making things clear? If we do not do it, it will be done for us.
The trouble with some of these cases, which people often forget, is that if we play games with legislation that is not clear, honest and obvious, we give people who may well be guilty of crime the opportunity to have their convictions quashed later on a technicality. Why on earth do we run the risk?
In some of the cases that went before the European Court, there was overwhelming evidence but, because our rules were not fair, convictions were quashed. Does that really serve justice? The answer is no. When we detain people and deny them access to lawyers, do we achieve anything in a judicial sense? What on earth is the purpose of keeping someone incommunicado? I can understand it while people are being arrested and there is a rolling round-up of villains. The classic example is the armed robbery: the police hold incommunicado those they have caught escaping from a bank. That is perfectly reasonable and proper, because the notice of their arrest may well alert people whom the police are seeking to trace and arrest. No one objects to that. Including such a provision in legislation on terrorism would be equally understandable and proper. The reasoning would be in front of us, and there would be no query about it.
The minute we go beyond being reasonable and do not write into the law the equivalent of the law in other fields, whether in terrorism or something else, we open ourselves up to subsequent actions in the European Court that can lead to the quashing of convictions. Under article 6, if we get it wrong, there is no second chance, no retrial—the conviction is quashed. That is what we saw in the Murray case, which never actually got to the point about legal advice. There were already enough grounds to quash it. The European Court does not necessarily take every point. It looks at the strongest points and rules on those. Murray was one case, and Davis and Johnson is another. Not getting public interest immunity inquiry cases right leads to the quashing of convictions.
So it goes on. In 1984, we wanted to avoid miscarriages of justice, and much legislation has been put in place since then. We have seen some pretty terrible cases, but we create cases of injustice when we do not have simple and fair laws. I ask the Minister of State just to look later at the new clause—that will be good enough for me. They tell me that this is a listening Government, and I hope that they will also listen to me about something else that I raised. I do not like voting against the Government. I try not to. If the Minister of State simply looks at the new clause, he will see the wisdom of ensuring that the law in


Northern Ireland is exactly the same as the law in England and Wales. If that is so, we ain't got a problem. Why can it not be like that?

Dr. Godman: I promise that I will be brief. I wish to seek clarification with regard to new clause 4 which, it has been suggested to me, excludes Scotland. Yet it refers to clause 40, subsection (3)(b) of which refers to someone being detained under schedule 6. In the table of designated ports in schedule 6, five of them are in Scotland—Ardrossan, Cairnryan, Campbeltown, Stranraer and Troon. If things go well over the next few months, Port Glasgow may have to be added to that list. Negotiations are taking place about a ferry service between Northern Ireland and Port Glasgow. I believe that a ferry terminal will be built there.
This is not a facetious point. We know that extremists on both sides of the divide have their supporters in Scotland. Recently, a person convicted of a terrorist crime was released and has applied to a Scottish university to read for a degree in political science.
The new clause states that all persons detained should have a solicitor present at all interviews to be conducted under this measure. The presence of a solicitor in such interviews is, I believe, standard practice in police and criminal procedures in England. That is not the case in Scotland, and that might present a difficulty if the new clause includes Scotland, as I think that it must, given what I have said about clause 40(3)(b).
Given the activities of some people in Scotland in relation to extremist organisations in Northern Ireland, do persons detained under the Bill have the same rights when being interviewed as apply elsewhere in the United Kingdom?

Mr. Bermingham: My hon. Friend makes a very good point about Scotland. Will he accept from me that the inquisitorial procedures in Scotland, with the role of the procurator fiscal, the way in which evidence in accumulated and served and the way in which interviewing take place are different from those of England? Whereas Scotland may well have problems in the future with the European Court, we should not allow Northern Ireland to have problems that can be avoided.

Dr. Godman: I have two comments in response to my hon. Friend's intervention. The Scottish legal system is now a devolved matter for the Scottish Parliament. However, there is a difference between the two systems concerning the right to a solicitor. Some years ago, when we were debating a Scottish criminal justice Bill in this place, I sought to amend it along those lines. I was defeated. My right hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow, Anniesland (Mr. Dewar), who then represented Glasgow, Garscadden and who is a lawyer, unfortunately argued against me. However, there is a distinction that has some bearing on the new clause.

8 pm

Mr. McNamara: I think that the new clause governs Scotland as well, as it refers to clause 40, which is in part V on counter-terrorist powers, not part VII, which is limited to Northern Ireland.

Dr. Godman: I am grateful to my hon. Friend, who has greater knowledge of the law than I. In that case,

we may have to amend Scots law, which would be a matter for the Scottish Parliament, even where this sort of legislation is concerned. At the very least, a concordat would have to be established between Ministers from the Home and Northern Ireland Offices and the Scottish Executive.
There are difficulties with the new clause where Scotland is concerned. Even though Scotland has not suffered from the outrages that have been inflicted on English communities—I think that the army general council of the Provisional IRA decided some years ago not to extend the campaign to Scotland—nevertheless senior police officers in the Pitt street headquarters of the Strathclyde police in Glasgow say that numerous supporters of outrageous terrorist activities and activists are based in Scotland.
I merely ask the Minister that persons detained under clause 40 should have the same protection as those detained elsewhere in the United Kingdom.

Mr. Lidington: Government amendment No. 64 is the central amendment in this group. It makes sense to relate the other amendments to the Government's proposal. The Government suggest that someone who is detained under the powers in clause 40 should have two rights: to inform a friend, relative or other person of their detention and to have access to a solicitor as soon as reasonably practicable, but subject to a number of exceptions, which are laid down in the Government's amendments to schedule 7.
Labour Members spoke in favour of their amendment. A detainee should have a right to consult his or her solicitor, but the right should be conditional to some extent and should not be left untrammelled. The hon. Member for St. Helens, South (Mr. Bermingham) said how, with a bank robbery, the police might be justified in holding incommunicado members of a gang whom they had captured while they attempted to extract information and get hold of the gang members who had evaded them.
The Government face a difficult balance between the desire to accord people legitimate civil rights and the demands of effective counter-terrorist policing. If someone is allowed unconditional access to a solicitor after detention, there will be a risk that other members of a terrorist organisation may be informed that an arrest has taken place or of a suspicion that an individual has informed the security forces, or that other information may be passed on that would help terrorists to perpetrate their crimes or put the police and security forces at risk.

Mr. Bermingham: I think that the hon. Gentleman misunderstood what I said. Under English law, one can hold someone incommunicado for serious arrestable offences. We understand that, it is acceptable and special rules apply. Also, at present one can hold those arrested for terrorist offences incommunicado and no one is suggesting that that should change. The Bill should make it clear that the powers that are being exercised in England and Wales are the powers that will be exercised in Northern Ireland. We are simply saying, "Same place, same powers."

Mr. Lidington: The Minister will defend the exact words of the amendment, but the list in sub-paragraphs (4)(a) to (g) is pretty comprehensive in setting out the risks that would legitimately justify withholding access to a solicitor during a counter-terrorist investigation.
I understood the intention of the hon. Member for Leyton and Wanstead (Mr. Cohen), but it is a mistake to set a firm time limit for the review of detention. There is always a risk, in particular when one is dealing with officialdom in whatever shape or form, that a maximum time limit will become the minimum. The language of the Bill—that the review should take place as soon as is reasonably practical—offers a better safeguard. In most instances the police service will want to conduct the review and get it out of the way as quickly as possible.
I have three questions for the Minister about the Government amendments. If he cannot reply in detail now, I should be grateful if he would respond in writing in due course.
First, the hon. Member for Greenock and Inverclyde (Dr. Godman) pursued the Scottish angle and schedule 7 seems to include a section that offers safeguards to people detained under clause 40 in Scotland. Amendment No. 64 would put in place comparable safeguards for detainees in England, Wales and Northern Ireland. However, the criteria for withholding access to a solicitor are different. The language of the Bill in page 108, where it relates to Scotland, is much less specific than the items laid down in amendment No. 64, which apply to England, Wales and Northern Ireland. Why is that the case? In practice, is there likely to be a substantial difference between the safeguards and categories of exemption available in England, Wales and Northern Ireland and those available to a detainee in Scotland? That might be an important distinction in an investigation that crosses boundaries within the United Kingdom, if there were indeed a difference of substance in the law that the Government propose.
Secondly, how will the police power to withhold access to a solicitor under certain defined conditions link with the power to seek from a judicial authority an extension of the detention period of up to seven days? Am I correct in my understanding that the Government propose that, provided the conditions in sub-paragraph (4) of amendment No. 64 are met, someone could be denied access to a solicitor for up to the full seven days of detention provided for in the Bill?
Thirdly, I have a question about the right of the detained person to have one named person informed of his detention as soon as reasonably practical. The amendment does not specify the way in which that information should be communicated. The Government clearly realise—in their proposals on legal advice—that there need to be safeguards in relation to the police and the conduct of counter-terrorist investigations. Do not those problems also arise as regards alerting a friend, relative or other person interested in the welfare of the detainee?
Is there a risk that exercising that right, which seems to be unconditional—according to my reading of amendment No. 64—would lead to information getting out that would put lives, or a terrorist investigation, at risk in the same way that the Government have accepted might happen if there were untrammelled access to a solicitor's advice? What is the Government's reason for making that difference between the two categories of right that they want to extend under the amendment?
I look forward to answers to those questions, but the Opposition are broadly content with the Government's proposals.

Mr. Charles Clarke: The discussion has been interesting. I welcome the opportunity to speak briefly on several of the issues raised.
My hon. Friend the Member for Hull, North (Mr. McNamara) referred to access to solicitors. I shall deal with the points that he made and with Government amendment No. 64, and the amendments grouped with it, in the same context. There is not much difference between my hon. Friend's position and that in the Government's substantive amendment No. 64 and the others. There is universal acknowledgement that prompt access to a solicitor should be the norm in any of the circumstances outlined in the provisions. However, there is a difference between us; I shall deal further with that when I have made the general case for the Government's substantive amendments.
The Government believe that in terrorist cases, as in ordinary cases under the Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1984, it should be possible in very rare circumstances—I stress that point—on the authority of a senior officer, to delay access to a solicitor. As I understand my hon. Friend's new clause, he thinks that that should not be possible in any circumstances. That is a difference between us. As the hon. Member for Aylesbury (Mr. Lidington) noted, it is a matter on which a balance of judgment has to be made. I shall put some flesh on that point in a moment. Before doing so, I shall explain the effect of the Government amendments.
The Government amendments will add to the Bill the circumstances in which the right to advise someone of one's detention and/or to consult a solicitor may be deferred. When the Bill was introduced, that was achieved by amendments to sections 56 and 58 of PACE and the equivalent Northern Ireland PACE order, found in schedule 13. In the course of drafting those provisions, some technical deficiencies were identified and it was decided, for the ease of the reader, that rather than merely tidying them up by amendment, they should be included in the Bill. That is in line with the provisions for Scotland set out in paragraphs 12 to 16 of schedule 7. I hope that approach will be broadly welcomed.
My hon. Friend the Member for Greenock and Inverclyde (Dr. Godman) and the hon. Member for Aylesbury made some points about the situation in Scotland. The legal position in Scotland is addressed in paragraphs 12 to 16 of schedule 7. As my hon. Friend pointed out, Scotland has a separate criminal justice system, so matters are not dealt with in quite the same way.
In response to the point made by the hon. Member for Aylesbury, let me say that the criteria are slightly different, but as they are consistent we do not think that any substantial difference will emerge. We have considered the issue carefully. However, in the light of the points made in the debate, I am prepared to consider whether my assertion needs closer scrutiny. The hon. Gentleman made a fair point, but the reason why Scotland is dealt with separately is—as my hon. Friend the Member for Greenock and Inverclyde pointed out—that Scotland has a separate system.
8.15 pm
The amendments do not change our policy on the arrangements for those detained under the terrorism provisions; they ensure that such people usually have a


prompt means of communicating with a named person and/or can obtain access to a solicitor. The amendments continue to provide that those rights would usually be available as soon as practicable. They also provide that, under the Prevention of Terrorism Acts, as at present—I emphasise that that is the situation that exists as we speak—and as provided for when the Bill was introduced, those rights may be deferred in certain circumstances for up to 48 hours.
The circumstances in which the rights may be deferred are set out in paragraph 2C(4) of amendment No. 64. Seven alternatives are envisaged. The first four apply in all PACE cases; the last three are specific to terrorist cases. They include circumstances in which there is reasonable suspicion that access to a solicitor will have the effect of making it more difficult to prevent a terrorist act, or to apprehend someone involved in such an act, or to gather information about the commission, preparation or instigation of acts of terrorism.
That is the fundamental point with which I respond to the intervention made by my hon. Friend the Member for St. Helens, South (Mr. Bermingham). He asked what was different for Northern Ireland. The difference is that we are talking about terrorist legislation. That is what gives rise to the whole measure and to some of the issues that have been raised.

Mr. Bermingham: I am not against the idea of delaying the right of access; it is already acceptable in serious, arrestable offences. It is certainly acceptable in terrorist offences—because of the pursuit and arrest of other suspects and so on. The point on which I intervened is my grave concern about the presence of a solicitor during an interview. I can see no reason why that should ever be denied.

Mr. Clarke: I understand the point that my hon. Friend makes; I shall return to it in a moment.
We do not expect access to be deferred often. Records for England and Wales show that access has not been deferred in any terrorist cases during the past three years. In Northern Ireland, access was deferred in only 19 cases in 1999, in four cases in 1998, and in 33 cases in 1997. However, it is important to be able to defer access in exceptional cases. That brings me to the new clause tabled by my hon. Friend the Member for Hull, North and the points that he made.
It would not be sensible to bind ourselves to a position in which it was never possible to defer access to a solicitor. If I understand my hon. Friend the Member for St. Helens, South, he appeared to acknowledge that in his intervention. That is not to suggest that the Government assume that some solicitors may have links with terrorism—any more than the fact that such provision exists under PACE for detention in non-terrorist cases suggests that we assume that solicitors might have links with organised crime. However, we must provide in law for the possibility that such a situation might occur. Otherwise, with the absolute right that the new clause provides, even if the police knew that a nominated solicitor was directly linked to a terrorist group, they would be powerless to defer access. However rare we might all believe such circumstances to be—I do not seek

to impugn the reputation of solicitors either in Northern Ireland or Great Britain—it is surely our responsibility to ensure that such an eventuality could be dealt with if it arose.

Mr. McNamara: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for giving way. My new clause actually states that a person detained
shall be promptly informed of their right to consult privately with a solicitor and to have a solicitor present at all interviews to be conducted under this Act.
We are arguing about being interviewed, not about the length of detention—although that might be another argument.

Mr. Clarke: It is precisely in response to the concerns expressed by my hon. Friend that a clear provision will be included in the Bill.
My hon. Friend and my hon. Friend the Member for St. Helens, South made some points about human rights. We believe that the Bill is entirely consistent with the European convention on human rights. We have considered the matter at great length and that is why the certificate is in the Bill.
I am perfectly well aware that lawyers may challenge that view, and the hon. Member for Southwark, North and Bermondsey (Mr. Hughes) initiated an entertaining discussion on that in Committee. Indeed, the cynic would say that it is likely that the view will be challenged in law. We believe that the provisions specifically protect the processes that we have described against action in the European Court of Human Rights and under the Human Rights Act 1998.
It is in that context that I deal with the matter raised by my hon. Friend the Member for Hull, North. I am the first to acknowledge the sensitivities of interviewing a person without their having the benefit of a solicitor being present, and those sensitivities include the fact that there could be implications for the weight that may be placed in any subsequent court case on answers given in those circumstances.

Mr. Bermingham: My hon. Friend comes to the exact cause of my worry. The problem is the fact that one can draw inferences from the right to silence being exercised or from what is said during an interview. The presence of a lawyer protects the interviewer as well as the interviewee. If we have that in England in criminal and terrorist cases, why on earth are we not including it in the Bill?

Mr. Clarke: If my hon. Friend will permit me, I will come to the precise point that he has been raising throughout the discussion.
As I said, the sensitivities include the fact that there could be implications for the weight that may be placed in any subsequent court case on answers given in those circumstances. Sections 76 and 78 of PACE provide for the courts to exclude confessions or other evidence obtained unfairly, and of course it would be for the court to decide whether those provisions applied to evidence adduced in court which was obtained before a solicitor was present. That deals directly with my hon. Friend's point.
As I have said, we do not envisage access being denied other than in the most exceptional circumstances, and we have a responsibility to ensure that those detained under


the terrorism provisions, as under PACE, are properly looked after, and that includes having appropriate access to legal advice. Equally, we have a responsibility to prevent acts of terrorism and to apprehend those involved in such acts. That is the balance of judgment that we have made.
I have tried to set out the Government's thinking in response to the points that have been made, and I am prepared to consider whether any of the matters raised need to be addressed. However, what we have said is clear and straightforward.

Dr. Godman: I am extremely grateful for the courteous and comprehensive way in which my hon. Friend responded to my concerns about Scotland. On a minor point, in the table of designated ports on page 103, Campbeltown is misspelt.

Mr. Clarke: I shall certainly draw that misspelling to the attention of the parliamentary draftsmen.
I turn now to the points raised by my hon. Friend the Member for Leyton and Wanstead (Mr. Cohen). Amendment No. 173 is unnecessary. Paragraph 25 of schedule 7 provides that a review officer must make a written record of the outcome of all reviews and that the record must include the grounds on which continued detention is authorised. That is fundamental to the issues raised by my hon. Friend.
Paragraph 18 provides that the first review of detention must be as soon as practicable after arrest, and reviews must take place thereafter at 12-hour intervals, so although there may not be a review at exactly the 36-hour point specified in the amendment, there will be a review between 36 and 48 hours. As with all reviews, a written record will be made of the outcome, including the reasons for continued detention, and that addresses my hon. Friend's specific point.
Amendment No. 178 in the name of my hon. Friend would require the first detention review to be done within four hours of arrest. In most cases it would not be realistic to have a fixed requirement, and I could not advise the House to accept the amendment. My hon. Friend acknowledged that the figure of four hours was plucked out of the air. I do not suggest that as any criticism of his amendment, but that is essentially the problem in choosing a period, whether it is two hours, four hours or six hours—there is an arbitrary nature to that choice. That is why the wording—[Interruption.]

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. I appeal to the House to come to order. There are too many private conversations going on, and the Minister is replying to the points made by hon. Members.

Mr. Clarke: I am sorry for going on for slightly longer than I had hoped. Many technical points were made during interventions and I thought that it was courteous to respond to them as fully as possible, even though I am aware that this may not be the height of rhetoric and may not grip everybody in the way that every parliamentarian would wish.
We hold to the phrase
as soon as is reasonably practicable
precisely because fixing a particular time would not be effective.

Mr. Cohen: I am gripped by interest in the Minister's response, and I accept that my period of four hours before the first review and subsequent report is arbitrary, although it is meant to be a maximum period. My hon. Friend's formula is for the review and report to be done
as soon as is reasonably practicable.
Would he expect that to be within four hours?

Mr. Clarke: I am certainly prepared to say that the courts would view the period suggested by my hon. Friend as reasonable, but that is a judgment not for me but for the courts, which have to consider situations in the round. Delays can happen for realistic, technical reasons, and they need to be dealt with.
I have tried to deal as fully as I can with the points made by hon. Members, even down to the spelling of important Scottish towns, critical as that is. I hope that, on consideration, my hon. Friend the Member for Hull, North will withdraw his new clause and we will not have a Division.
I am conscious of the time and hon. Members' desire to move on, so I have not spent a great deal of time explaining Government amendments Nos. 60 to 63, which have not been addressed in the debate. I hope that they will be accepted.

Mr. McNamara: In view of what the Minister has said and his willingness to look at the points again, presumably before the Bill goes to the other place, and in view of amendment No. 64, which goes some way to meeting our concerns about what was missing from the Bill, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the motion.

Motion and clause, by leave, withdrawn.

New Clause 8

EXPIRY AND REVIVAL (No. 2)

'(1) This Act shall (subject to subsection (2)) cease to have effect at the end of the period of five years beginning with the day on which the Act is brought into force.

(2) The Secretary of State may by order provide—

(a) that a provision of this Act which is in force (whether or not by virtue of this subsection) shall continue in force for a specific period not exceeding five years;
(b) that a provision of this Act shall cease to have effect;
(c) that a provision of this Act which is not in force (whether or not by virtue of this subsection) shall come into force and remain in force for a specified period not exceeding five years.

(3) An order under subsection (2) shall be made by statutory instrument; and no such order shall be made unless a draft of the statutory instrument containing the order has been laid before, and approved by a resolution of, each House of Parliament.'.—[Mr. Simon Hughes.]

Brought up, and read the First time.

Motion made, and Question put, That the clause be read a Second time:—

The House divided: Ayes 47, Noes 281.

Division No. 109]
[8.28 pm


AYES


Allan, Richard
Beith, Rt Hon A J


Ashdown, Rt Hon Paddy
Bell, Martin (Tatton)


Baker, Norman
Breed, Colin


Ballard, Jackie
Bruce, Malcolm (Gordon)






Burnett, John
McNamara, Kevin


Burstow, Paul
Marshall, Jim (Leicester S)


Campbell, Rt Hon Menzies (NE Fife)
Michie, Mrs Ray (Argyll & Bute)



Moore, Michael


Chidgey, David
Morgan, Alasdair (Galloway)


Cotter, Brian
Oaten, Mark


Davey, Edward (Kingston)
Rendel, David


Fearn, Ronnie
Sanders, Adrian


Flynn, Paul
Simpson, Alan (Nottingham S)


Foster, Don (Bath)
Smith, Sir Robert (W Ab'd'ns)


George, Andrew (St Ives)
Stunell, Andrew


Hancock, Mike
Taylor, Matthew (Truro)


Harris, Dr Evan
Thomas, Simon (Ceredigion)


Heath, David (Somerton & Frome)
Tonge, Dr Jenny


Hogg, Rt Hon Douglas
Tyler, Paul


Hughes, Simon (Southwark N)
Wallace, James


Kennedy, Rt Hon Charles (Ross Skye & Inverness W)
Webb, Steve



Willis, Phil



Wise, Audrey


Livsey, Richard



Llwyd, Elfyn
Tellers for the Ayes:


McDonnell, John
Mr. Tom Brake and


Maclennan, Rt Hon Robert
Mr. Bob Russell.




NOES


Ainger, Nick
Clwyd, Ann


Ainsworth, Robert (Cov'try NE)
Coaker, Vernon


Alexander, Douglas
Coffey, Ms Ann


Anderson, Donald (Swansea E)
Cohen, Harry


Anderson, Janet (Rossendale)
Colman, Tony


Armstrong, Rt Hon Ms Hilary
Connarty, Michael


Ashton, Joe
Cook, Frank (Stockton N)


Atkins, Charlotte
Cooper, Yvette


Austin, John
Corston, Jean


Banks, Tony
Cousins, Jim


Barnes, Harry
Cranston, Ross


Battle, John
Crausby, David


Beard, Nigel
Cryer, Mrs Ann (Keighley)


Beckett, Rt Hon Mrs Margaret
Cryer, John (Hornchurch)


Begg, Miss Anne
Cummings, John


Benn, Hilary (Leeds C)
Cunningham, Jim (Cov'try S)


Bennett, Andrew F
Curtis-Thomas, Mrs Claire


Benton, Joe
Darvill, Keith


Bermingham, Gerald
Davey, Valerie (Bristol W)


Berry, Roger
Davies, Rt Hon Denzil (Llanelli)


Best, Harold
Davies, Geraint (Croydon C)


Betts, Clive
Dawson, Hilton


Blackman, Liz
Donaldson, Jeffrey


Blears, Ms Hazel
Dowd, Jim


Blizzard, Bob
Drew, David


Boateng, Rt Hon Paul
Drown, Ms Julia


Borrow, David
Dunwoody, Mrs Gwyneth


Bradley, Keith (Withington)
Eagle, Angela (Wallasey)


Bradshaw, Ben
Eagle, Maria (L'pool Garston)


Brinton, Mrs Helen
Edwards, Huw


Browne, Desmond
Ennis, Jeff


Burden, Richard
Fisher, Mark


Burgon, Colin
Fitzpatrick, Jim


Butler, Mrs Christine
Flint, Caroline


Byers, Rt Hon Stephen
Forsythe, Clifford


Campbell, Alan (Tynemouth)
Foster, Rt Hon Derek


Campbell, Mrs Anne (C'bridge)
Foster, Michael Jabez (Hastings)


Campbell, Ronnie (Blyth V)
Foster, Michael J (Worcester)


Campbell-Savours, Dale
Gapes, Mike


Cann, Jamie
Gardiner, Barry


Caplin, Ivor
George, Bruce (Walsall S)


Casale, Roger
Gerrard, Neil


Cawsey, Ian
Gibson, Dr Ian


Chapman, Ben (Wirral S)
Gilroy, Mrs Linda


Chaytor, David
Godman, Dr Norman A


Clapham, Michael
Godsiff, Roger


Clark, Dr Lynda (Edinburgh Pentlands)
Goggins, Paul



Golding, Mrs Llin


Clark, Paul (Gillingham)
Gordon, Mrs Eileen


Clarke, Charles (Norwich S)
Griffiths, Jane (Reading E)


Clelland, David
Griffiths, Nigel (Edinburgh S)





Griffiths, Win (Bridgend)
Merron, Gillian


Grocott, Bruce
Miller, Andrew


Grogan, John
Mitchell, Austin


Gunnell, John
Moffatt, Laura


Hall, Mike (Weaver Vale)
Moonie, Dr Lewis


Hall, Patrick (Bedford)
Moran, Ms Margaret


Hamilton, Fabian (Leeds NE)
Morgan, Ms Julie (Cardiff N)


Hanson, David
Morley, Elliot


Harman, Rt Hon Ms Harriet
Morris, Rt Hon Ms Estelle (B'ham Yardley)


Heal, Mrs Sylvia



Healey, John
Morris, Rt Hon Sir John (Aberavon)


Hepburn, Stephen



Heppell, John
Mountford, Kali


Hill, Keith
Murphy, Denis (Wansbeck)


Hinchliffe, David
Murphy, Rt Hon Paul (Torfaen)


Hodge, Ms Margaret
Naysmith, Dr Doug


Hope, Phil
O'Brien, Bill (Normanton)


Howarth, Alan (Newport E)
O'Brien, Mike (N Warks)


Howells, Dr Kim
O'Hara, Eddie


Hoyle, Lindsay
Olner, Bill


Hughes, Ms Beverley (Stretford)
O'Neill, Martin


Hughes, Kevin (Doncaster N)
Organ, Mrs Diana


Hurst, Alan
Pearson, Ian


Hutton, John
Pendry, Tom


Iddon, Dr Brian
Pickthall, Colin


Illstey, Eric
Pike, Peter L


Ingram, Rt Hon Adam
Plaskitt, James


Jackson, Helen (Hillsborough)
Pollard, Kerry


Jamieson, David
Pond, Chris


Jenkins, Brian
Pope, Greg


Johnson, Alan (Hull W & Hessle)
Pound, Stephen


Johnson, Miss Melanie (Welwyn Hatfield)
Prentice, Ms Bridget (Lewisham E)



Prosser, Gwyn


Jones, Rt Hon Barry (Alyn)
Purchase, Ken


Jones, Mrs Fiona (Newark)
Quin, Rt Hon Ms Joyce


Jones, Helen (Warrington N)
Quinn, Lawrie


Jones, Jon Owen (Cardiff C)
Radice, Rt Hon Giles


Jones, Dr Lynne (Selly Oak)
Rammell, Bill


Jones, Martyn (Clwyd S)
Rapson, Syd


Jowell, Rt Hon Ms Tessa
Reed, Andrew (Loughborough)


Keeble, Ms Sally
Robinson, Peter (Belfast E)


Keen, Alan (Feltham & Heston)
Roche, Mrs Barbara


Kemp, Fraser
Rogers, Allan


Kennedy, Jane (Wavertree)
Rooker, Rt Hon Jeff


Khabra, Piara S
Rooney, Terry


Kidney, David
Ross, Ernie (Dundee W)


Kilfoyle, Peter
Ross, William (E Lond'y)


Kumar, Dr Ashok
Rowlands, Ted


Laxton, Bob
Ruane, Chris


Lepper, David
Russell, Ms Christine (Chester)


Leslie, Christopher
Ryan, Ms Joan


Levitt, Tom
Salter, Martin


Lewis, Ivan (Bury S)
Sawford, Phil


Linton, Martin
Sedgemore, Brian


Lock, David
Shaw, Jonathan


Love, Andrew
Shipley, Ms Debra


McAvoy, Thomas
Short, Rt Hon Clare


McCabe, Steve
Singh, Marsha


McCartney, Rt Hon Ian (Makerfield)
Skinner, Dennis



Smith, Rt Hon Andrew (Oxford E)


McDonagh, Siobhain
Smith, Angela (Basildon)


McFall, John
Smith, Miss Geraldine (Morecambe & Lunesdale)


McIsaac, Shona



Mackinlay, Andrew
Smith, Jacqui (Redditch)


Mactaggart, Fiona
Smith, John (Glamorgan)


McWalter, Tony
Smith, Llew (Blaenau Gwent)


McWilliam, John
Smyth, Rev Martin (Belfast S)


Maginnis, Ken
Snape, Peter


Mahon, Mrs Alice
Southworth, Ms Helen


Mallaber, Judy
Squire, Ms Rachel


Marsden, Gordon (Blackpool S)
Starkey, Dr Phyllis


Marsden, Paul (Shrewsbury)
Steinberg, Gerry


Marshall-Andrews, Robert
Stewart, David (Inverness E)


Maxton, John
Stinchcombe, Paul


Meacher, Rt Hon Michael
Stoate, Dr Howard


Meale, Alan
Strang, Rt Hon Dr Gavin






Straw, Rt Hon Jack
Twigg, Stephen (Enfield)


Stringer, Graham
Tynan, Bill


Stuart, Ms Gisela
Ward, Ms Claire


Sutcliffe, Gerry
Watts, David


Taylor, Rt Hon Mrs Ann (Dewsbury)
White, Brian



Williams, Rt Hon Alan (Swansea W)


Taylor, Ms Dari (Stockton S)



Taylor, David (NW Leics)
Williams, Alan W (E Carmarthen)


Taylor, Rt Hon John D (Strangford)
Williams, Mrs Betty (Conwy)


Thomas, Gareth R (Harrow W)
Winnick, David


Thompson, William
Winterton, Ms Rosie (Doncaster C)


Timms, Stephen
Wood, Mike


Tipping, Paddy
Woolas, Phil


Todd, Mark
Worthington, Tony


Touhig, Don
Wright, Anthony D (Gt Yarmouth)


Trickett, Jon
Wyatt, Derek


Turner, Dennis (Wolverh'ton SE)
Tellers for the Noes:


Turner, Dr Desmond (Kemptown)
Mrs. Anne McGuire and


Turner, Neil (Wigan)
Mr. Graham Allen.

Question accordingly negatived.

Clause 1

TERRORISM: INTERPRETATION

Mr. McNamara: I beg to move amendment No. 122, in page 1, line 7, leave out from "means" to end of line 8 and insert—

'the commission of, or the threat to commit, any criminal act with the intention of—

(a) putting the public or any section of the public in fear, or
(b) coercing the institutions of democratic government, provided that the act'.

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Sir Alan Haselhurst): With this, it will be convenient to discuss the following amendments: No. 190, in page 1, line 7, leave out from "use" to end of line 12 and insert—

'of serious violence against a person or persons, or the threat to use such violence, to intimidate or coerce a government, one or more political bodies or organisations, the public or any section of the public for political ends, and which—

(a) endangers the life of any person; or
(b) creates a serious risk to the health or safety of the public or a section of the public.'.

No. 194, in page 1, line 7, leave out from "threat" to "of in line 8 and insert "for political ends,".

No. 192, in page 1, leave out line 8 and insert—
'coercing, influencing or intimidating government, one or more political bodies, groups or organisations, the public or any section of the public, of actions which—'.

No. 146, in page 1, leave out line 9 and insert—
'(a) involves violence against any person or serious violence against property'.'.

No. 193, in page 1, line 9, leave out "or property".

No. 123, in page 1, line 10,, after "(b)", insert "seriously".

No. 195, in page 1, line 14, leave out from "Kingdom" to "and" in line 16.

Mr. McNamara: Amendment No. 122 would alter the definition of terrorism. It would remove the phrase
the use or threat, for the purpose of advancing a political, religious or ideological cause, of action.

Amendment No. 123, which I also tabled, would insert "seriously" before "endangers" in subsection (1)(b).
The amendment is a straight response to the kind invitation that the Minister issued in Committee on 8 February. He said:
if a better definition of terrorism emerges, we are prepared to consider it.-[Official Report, Standing Committee D, 8 February 2000; c. 325.]
The definition of terrorism took up the time of the House and the Committee. Hon. Members were worried that the definition in the Bill was too wide, based on wrong principles, and could catch in its net people who simply opposed genetically modified foods.
The Government's attitude to those who oppose GM foods has altered since Second Reading. Someone who might once have been considered an eco-terrorist is now regarded merely as a person who has serious misgivings about the adequacy of the provision for GM plants and their long-term effect.
The amendment arises from discussions that I held with the Northern Ireland Human Rights Commission, which was worried about the wide scope and subjective nature of the definition. The amendment that the commission proposed has four main elements. First, it deals with the motivational basis. The commission suggests that the provision for
advancing a political, religious or ideological cause
should be removed.
Secondly, the Northern Ireland Human Rights Commission insisted that the action should be contrary to the criminal law. Thirdly, it proposed that the prohibited action should put the public in fear, or coerce the institutions of democratic government.
The commission believes that the Bill should not provide for differential police powers that depend on the motive behind the relevant actions. It believes that triggering the special powers should depend on the nature of the intended consequences of the action. In its view, the two most undesirable consequences are
putting the public or any section of the public in fear
and
coercing the institutions of democratic government.
Motivation is not the issue and should not be criminalised, although it would probably be appropriate to tackle it at the sentencing stage if someone was found guilty of an offence. As my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary said on 14 December:
If people are killed or injured, the fact that the bombs, the shrapnel and the glass carry a label marked "Animal rights" or the name of some foreign country is immaterial to those who suffer.— [Official Report, 14 December 1999; Vol. 341, c. 165.]
Motivation is extremely hard to prove and the categories are not susceptible to clear delineation. The Bill's approach makes the development of a two-tier justice system more likely. Under it, some people will be afforded lesser rights on the basis of the motivation for their crimes.

Mr. Douglas Hogg: I am not opposed to the hon. Gentleman's objective, but does he realise that the amendment would make acts by, for example, hunt saboteurs, capable of falling within the


definition of terrorism? I do not suppose that the hon. Gentleman wants that, but the amendment would achieve that effect.

Mr. McNamara: I understand the right hon. and learned Gentleman's point and I would be prepared to take a verbal amendment to exclude hunt saboteurs. However, even though clause 1 is one of the most controversial in the Bill—he is probably aware of that as he took part in the exchanges on Second Reading—I do not intend to push the amendment to the vote. That shows the degree to which the House is searching for a satisfactory solution to this difficult problem that gets away from advancing a political, religious or ideological issue and achieves a better way of dealing with it.
Amendment No. 123, which would put the word "seriously" in front of the word "endangers", would meet the problems raised by the right hon. and learned Gentleman's hunt saboteur to some extent, but the essential point is that a criminal act should be committed, which would not necessarily make such an offence a terrorist offence. The problem is that, if we retain motivation in the definition, we will have a two-tier approach and certain people will be afforded lesser rights on the basis of the motivation for their crimes.
The inclusion of political, religious or ideological cause results in a definition of terrorism that is both too wide and too narrow. It is too wide because many of the problems with extending the definition in the manner proposed, which we discussed on Second Reading, show people's discomfort with the range of organisations and activities that we believe might be caught by the clause.
My right hon. Friend the Home Secretary gave the assurance that prosecutions would not ensue in many of the examples cited by colleagues from all parts of the House—for example, undertaking activities and fund raising on behalf of solidarity groups committed to major political changes in other countries—essentially on the basis that the Director of Public Prosecutions would use good sense in these matters. That is not in any way sufficient to allay the concerns expressed. Indeed, some decisions by the DPP to proceed with prosecutions, particularly under the Official Secrets Acts, make one wonder about whether that good sense is always proper and always accurate in these matters. Furthermore, a person's right to freedom of expression and of association cannot be contingent on the discretion of one person. The Bill should not be drawn wider than the threat justifies.
In addition, one of the principles underlying the European convention is that precision and certainty in the law is a key precept. A person is entitled to know whether the activities in which he or she wishes to engage or the right that he or she wishes to assert have been prescribed or limited by law. The Bill's definition is far too wide in terms of what a person may or may not say or express.
The definition is also too narrow because the clause excludes many organisations that use terror tactics—gangs involved in organised crime, racketeering or drug running, for example, which are not covered by a definition based on motivation. It is not certain that the Bill's definition would cover the Mafia. Surely, therefore, one should remember that the Bill's impact on society is

what will be assessed and gaps in the existing criminal law for dealing with such infrastructure errors or failures should be closed. The commission's first point, therefore, is that—specifically and directly—the question of motivation is dangerous. Far better to be specific in terms of attitude and say that a criminal offence should have been committed. It is that to which I now turn my attention.
The Bill's definition leaves open the possibility that some actions could be classified as terrorist although they were not criminal offences, and I do not consider that acceptable. The objective of this element of the commission's proposed definition is to exclude certain activities that would be covered by the definition, but that most people would not regard as terrorist—for example, activities involved in industrial action. Many trade unions could be accused of endangering the lives and/or the health and safety of a section of the public in such circumstances. That would apply to electricity workers, firefighters, ambulance workers or nurses. Under the Bill as it stands, such actions could potentially be classed as terrorism. A requirement for the legislation to be otherwise—to be criminal—would exclude, for example, legitimate industrial action. Hunger strikes or suicide attempts would likewise be excluded by the criminality requirement in my proposed new definition.
The next requirement in the amendment is that the action involved should put the public "in fear". International human rights standards make it clear that the essence of terrorism lies in the effect that it would have on the public. For example, the first protocol of the Geneva convention of 1949 refers, in sub-paragraph 2 of article 51, to
acts or threats of violence the primary purpose of which is to spread terror among the civilian population.
Article 5 of the 1998 United Nations convention on the suppression of terrorist bombings states:
Each State Party shall adopt such measures as may be necessary, including, where appropriate, domestic legislation, to ensure that criminal acts within the scope of this Convention, in particular, where they are intended or calculated to provoke a state of terror in the general public or in a group of persons or particular persons.
Interestingly, Lord Lloyd recommended a similar approach—that the definition should include the element of intimidating or coercing the public or any section of the public. His proposed definition was the use of serious violence against persons or property, or the threat to use such violence to intimidate or coerce a Government, the public or any section of the public in order to promote political, social or ideological objectives.
That is the whole definition. Although the commission does not accept the words
in order to promote political, social or ideological objectives,
it takes a similar approach to the European convention on human rights, the first protocol of the Geneva convention and the suppression of bombing convention.
The commission also considered the prohibition of action to coerce institutions of democratic government. The Minister of State, Home Office, my hon. Friend the Member for Norwich, South (Mr. Clarke), said in Committee:
The fundamental thrust of what we should be trying to achieve is a definition of terrorism as an attempt to undermine democratic processes by the use of violence.—[Official Report, Standing Committee D, 18 January 2000; c.18.]


We are trying to meet my hon. Friend's request, while meeting the spirit of Lord Lloyd's recommendation. That is the Government's intention, but it is not included in their definition.
The Northern Ireland Human Rights Commission proposes an alternative to
putting the public or any section of the public in fear.
The use of a car bomb to put pressure on a totalitarian regime would be covered, as would the threat to coerce a democratic Government that did not put the public or any section of it in fear.
We have grounds for discussion about the possibility of improving the Government's definition, and getting away from their ideological, political or religious approach. Nevertheless, the amendment aims to achieve what the Government and, I believe, the whole House want to achieve: to get away from a definition that is hugely subjective, wide in some aspects and dangerous, placing individuals in a position where they do not know whether what they are doing is right or wrong in the eyes of the law.

Mr. Hogg: Again, I entirely respect the hon. Gentleman's motives, but his amendment is enlarging the class of activities that might be treated as terrorist, not restricting them. If the Bill removed the purpose test and included the test of putting the public, or any section of it, in fear, hunt saboteurs, for example, would be brought within its scope. I dislike hunt saboteurs, but they are not in any ordinary sense terrorists. However, that is what the amendment would achieve.

Mr. McNamara: With the greatest respect, let me say that, if one inserts the word "seriously" before "endangers" in line 10 of clause 1, that will ensure that the risk that would trigger the powers is a serious one. If that is there, it will meet the right hon. and learned Gentleman's point. When he makes his speech, as 1 am sure that he will, because the question of definition has engaged and worried us all, we will hear what he proposes.
It is not my intention to force the matter to a vote, but, because of the concerns expressed here, there should perhaps be an opportunity for those in the other place who are learned in the law to apply their minds to the matter, which is causing considerable difficulties among lawyers, who are concerned about the sweep of that definition. It has caused Lord Lloyd of Berwick some concern. As the legislation is based on many of his opinions, it is proper that we consider his concerns carefully, but I make the point: a person should be guilty of a specific criminal act. That should be what is judged, not whether it is politically, religiously or ideologically motivated, although that point could be taken into account in sentencing.

Mr. Mark Fisher: My hon. Friend says that a person should be guilty of a specific act, but, from my reading of his amendment, it still encompasses the concept of threat. That is one of the things that I find most baffling and disturbing about the Government's wording in the Bill: the threat of serious violence against property constitutes terrorism. As I read their wording, a letter threatening to burn a field of GM crops would constitute an act of terrorism. I sympathise

with much of what he says, but, by maintaining the idea of threat, is his amendment not perpetuating the problem that I have with the Government's wording?

Mr. McNamara: We all have that problem on the question of threat. I put it in a way that my hon. Friend might appreciate. If I seek to carry out an act and threaten to do it, but that threat is not carried out, for whatever reason—a bomb does not go off or something of that nature—that would still be a threat. The amendments talks about seriously endangering life. That would meet that point. On the point about GM crops and similar matters, that is why I am seeking to get rid of motivation, which would then become a question on sentencing. There is a world of difference between the motivation of a person who is seeking to blow up a building and the motivation of a person who wants to destroy a field of GM crops. That is the point at which the question arises of whether an act is criminal.

9 pm

Mr. Simon Hughes: The hon. Gentleman has shown what difficult territory we are in. Those of us who served on the Standing Committee left it with the same definition with which we had begun. We are a long way from having an adequate and precise definition of terrorism. We must get that definition right, even in this slightly odd forum—the best that we have—because "terrorism" is the word on which the structure of the Bill depends. Once we define something as being terrorist, much else follows.
For example, proscription of an organisation may follow. That cannot happen unless, under clause 3, the Secretary of State believes that the organisation involved "is concerned in terrorism". A whole set of offences follows from a definition of terrorism, and the burden of proof or the nature of the defence will change. Those offences include fundraising for a terrorist organisation or failing to co-operate with the police in relation to a terrorist organisation. Much more happens. The powers of the police are greater if they say that they are dealing with terrorism. A person can be detained for longer, or large areas may be cordoned off. The powers of the Bill are based on the point that someone is involved in what is defined as terrorism.
Like the hon. Member for Hull, North (Mr. McNamara) and the right hon. and learned Member for Sleaford and North Hykeham (Mr. Hogg), I felt concern that we were going too far. To a lesser extent, the hon. Member for Aylesbury (Mr. Lidington) felt it, and it was certainly felt by the hon. Members for Fermanagh and South Tyrone (Mr. Maginnis) and—if I may say so in his absence; I know that he intends to come back after a constituency party meeting—for Basingstoke (Mr. Hunter).
I shall set out where the consensus lay. As the Minister appreciates, it is important to note that there was consensus to some extent over the need for a change to the definition. The hon. Gentleman has not yet signed up to that need, but there was a broad view across part of the Committee, as there is across the House—it includes people of such differing political perspectives as the hon. Members for Basingstoke and for Fermanagh and South Tyrone and hon. Members on the Labour and Liberal Democrat Benches—that a Bill that allows us to define as terrorism something that targets any organisation in the world goes too far.

Mr. Charles Clarke: This is a perfectly legitimate debate, just as it was in Committee, but the hon.


Gentleman takes too much on himself in seeking to speak for all members of that Committee. He should allow hon. Members to speak for themselves.

Mr. Hughes: They will. I merely put it to the Minister that a widespread view was expressed on Second Reading—and to a lesser extent by the somewhat more restricted membership of the Committee—that the definition is too wide. Although we may not yet have a form of wording that unites the hon. Member for Hull, North with the hon. Members for Fermanagh and South Tyrone and for Basingstoke, the right hon. and learned Member for Sleaford and North Hykeham and me, some common elements in the direction that all of us seek to follow would take us away from the definition given by the Minister and the Government. We want a better, tighter, more specific definition.

Mr. Gapes: Will the hon. Gentleman confirm that, although we had a discussion on the matter in Committee, the Committee did not accept his position on it—as we did not accept other positions on it? I shall certainly speak for myself later in the debate. The hon. Gentleman used the word "consensus", but there was not a consensus on the matter—there are different points of view on it. Those views are held by hon. Members from different parties—none of whom, I suspect, would necessarily agree with one another on the matter.

Mr. Hughes: I do not want to misrepresent the situation—nor do I want the hon. Gentleman to misrepresent me. I did not say that there was a consensus in the House—

Mr. Maginnis: A large body of opinion.

Mr. Hughes: Yes. There was a large body of dissatisfaction about the matter, and there is a large body of agreement on it between those whom I identified. I was not including everyone in that. I was not including the hon. Member for Ilford, South (Mr. Gapes), his colleagues in Committee who supported the Government when we voted on the provision, or the Minister. However, there is a consensus among a wide body of opinion in the House—that body; not everybody—that we should amend the legislation.

Mr. Clarke: The only reason that I am intervening—I had not intended to do so; I am very happy to listen to the hon. Gentleman's arguments—is that I must object to the proposition that he is speaking on behalf of some cross-party consensus in the Committee or in the House. He is speaking for himself, as he should.

Mr. Hughes: I do not want to be distracted by this issue. I shall make the point even more bluntly. The definition is not acceptable to many hon. Members on both sides of the House. I hope that the Minister understands that, and that the Government will amend the definition. The Liberal Democrats will seek to divide the House on amendment No. 192—unless, as I hope, Ministers have said by then that they will move in our direction.
I am not too bothered about whether the Government move in the direction that we propose, or in the direction proposed by the hon. Member for Hull, North or the hon. Member for Fermanagh and South Tyrone, as long as we move away from the breadth of the Government's definition—which will cover all sorts of activities which, until now, no one, not even Lord Lloyd, has argued should be defined as terrorism. We shall be stretching the definition of terrorism beyond any definition previously accepted in the United Kingdom, including that in the dictionary and that in common parlance. We should not do it.

Mr. Hogg: There is general unease about the Bill's definition of terrorism, which I share and will be expressing in my own words—if I have the good fortune to catch your eye, Mr. Deputy Speaker. One of the conclusions to which we may well come is that we cannot define terrorism in acceptable terms in clause 1 if we are properly to balance that definition with civil liberties. If that is right, the Bill itself is inherently flawed, both in part I and in consequential parts, and by seeking further and other definitions, we are simply thrashing about.

Mr. Hughes: That is certainly a theoretical conclusion to the debate, and it may even be the practical conclusion. In a moment, I shall try to deal with the Minister's objections to the proposed alternative definitions that we have included in some of our amendments.
Amendment No. 122, which was tabled by the hon. Member for Hull, North, seems to deal well with the point that, if we include motivation in the definition, we shall begin to be in trouble. If we start saying that we have to read someone's mind to determine whether their motivation is political, religious or ideological, huge numbers of people may be covered. I gave an example in Committee. In terms of motivation, someone who hears voices telling them that they must stalk serial adulterers will be considered to be ideologically driven. Such a person would potentially come within the definition of terrorism, provided that he or she fulfilled the other criteria. Someone who believed that he or she had a duty to be an environmentalist and therefore decided to attack property as a way of protesting against a particular development would also come within the definition in the Bill.
Until now, nobody has argued that that is terrorism. The dictionary definition of terrorism—we looked it up in Committee—makes no such reference. The Bill stretches the English language too far. We should not do that because we have the criminal law: it is not as if we do not have the rest of the law. If someone set off a bomb for no reason that anyone could divine—we do not know the conclusion of the case, but let us say that nobody ever discovered why those terrible nail bombs were set off in London—that would be covered by the explosive substances legislation. It is perfectly good criminal law. If someone attacks a field of corn, there is perfectly good legislation dealing with criminal damage and damage to property. The Bill is not meant to cover any of that; it is meant to provide for cases that are not already covered by the law, and we should provide only for cases that are not already covered.

Mr. Hogg: That is not right. The purpose of the Bill is not to tackle a range of activities that are not yet subject


to the criminal law but to attach to those individuals and organisations the full weight of the other powers to which the hon. Gentleman has referred, such as the restrictions on the right to finance.

Mr. Hughes: The right hon. Gentleman is correct. The law already exists, but the Bill will ratchet it up and suddenly apply the criminal law and a whole range of other powers. As the hon. Member for Fermanagh and South Tyrone knows—and he has had more practical experience of such legislation than most of us—it will then sweep into the legislation cases that no one wants swept in.
Amendments Nos. 190, 194 and 192 seek to direct the Bill at those who threaten political targets. The hon. Members for Fermanagh and South Tyrone and for Basingstoke and I—among others—believe that we should try to limit it in that way. The Minister will recall that in Committee we debated whether the Bill should be directed only at those who wanted to attack Government. We concluded that that would not do, as it would make it illegal to attack a Government who were not legal, or another political organisation. In Northern Ireland, if one political organisation attacked another political organisation, neither of which were in government, that would be understood as terrorism. We understood that we had to widen the definition of terrorism to include attacks on political organisations. That is why amendment No. 190 includes the phrase
to intimidate or coerce a government, one or more political bodies or organisations, the public or any section of the public …
The amendments also seek to remove the ideological and religious definitions because they are dangerously wide. They allow the crazed, deluded individual who is mentally ill or has a personality disorder to be swept in. We should not seek to do that. Such people are not terrorists just because they have an ideological fixation.
We also tried to make sure that the Bill did not include attacks on property where there was no risk to the public. In amendments Nos.193 and 195 we seek to remove the provisions in relation to property. To take the example of London, it would be callous to attack Canary Wharf or a building in docklands because people might be killed, but if someone decided to attack an empty building in the middle of a field and their the only intention was to attack the building—

Mr. Gapes: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

Mr. Hughes: No, not at the moment.
An attack on an empty building would not normally be regarded as in the same league as acts that involve serious violence against persons or endanger their health or create a serious risk to their safety.
I agree with the hon. Member for Hull, North that we must avoid legislation that would make the nurse who took political action in the course of his or her duty potentially guilty of terrorism, with all the panoply of consequences. That is disgraceful nonsense. Lord Lloyd may have come to nearly the same conclusion, but the Government have gone further than him and further than their own consultation paper.
The Government may say that there are various safeguards and that the Director of Public Prosecutions will not order prosecutions, but legislation should not do

what it is not intended to do. The Bill creates a whole set of new powers against the individual. That is bad legislation, as it neither defends the liberty of the subject nor helps make credible the argument for legislating against terrorism.
We have not found a solution that has the consensus of the whole House, but we have tabled amendments that would considerably improve the Bill. In due course, I will ask colleagues to support us in a vote on amendment No. 192.
The Home Office was shown one of many proposed amendments—the Human Rights Commission and Liberty have done some very good work, and I pay tribute to them—and said:
Whilst acknowledging the sensitivities surrounding violence against property alone, we do not think the answer can be to make all such violence "off limits".
We are not arguing that; we are arguing that violence that has only a property implication and can have no other should not be included.
The Government's only other objection was to ask about a bomb or threat in connection with the Grand National or a laboratory where experiments on animals take place. If that carries no risk to any member of the public and has nothing to do with threatening the institutions of the state, it should not be considered a terrorist activity and should be dealt with by the criminal law in the normal way.

Mr. Clarke: As I understand it, amendment No. 192 would have no impact whatever on the question of property. Is that right?

Mr. Hughes: Amendment No. 192 has to be read with the consequential amendments, Nos. 193 and 195. If they were made, property would disappear from the Bill unless the attack on property had a consequence for individuals. The amendments go together, with one narrowing the group affected and the others removing acts with property-only implications, although as a matter of practicality we do not seek to divide the House on every amendment on the list.

Mr. Gapes: Amendment No. 195 would, as I understand it, delete reference to activities that take place outside the United Kingdom. If the amendment were adopted, would the legislation apply only within the United Kingdom?

Mr. Hughes: The answer is no. I can show the hon. Gentleman the relevant wording later, but the problem is that we are considering seven or eight different amendments that are intended to deal only with property outside and inside the UK. They do not address the issue that we should have the power to deal here with activities that may arise abroad, subject to the qualification—which is always raised by the hon. Member for Fermanagh and South Tyrone—that they should be political activities.

Mr. Gapes: If somebody in this country planned a terrorist action to destroy property in another country, would it be subject to this legislation?

Mr. Hughes: It would be subject to the legislation if it posed a threat to an individual or group of individuals and


if it had a political aim. If no person were at risk, the activity would be excluded, because there are provisions in the criminal law to deal with such issues.
The European convention does not define terrorism as including property-only offences. The precedent is that terrorism is defined by threats and damage to individuals, not property. I hope that the Government have received the clear message that their definition is dangerously wide and should be changed.

Mr. Alan Simpson: I support amendments Nos. 122 and 123, tabled by my hon. Friend the Member for Hull, North (Mr. McNamara). I also support amendments to the definition in the Bill. I was sad that my new clause 7 was not selected for debate, but I shall try to address the principal issues that it covered.
I feel considerable disquiet about the Government's definition and, yesterday, I discussed it with my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary, at the Home Office. As I was waiting to be allowed in, I saw on the Lobby notice board that the security status was black. I asked what that meant and was told that it meant that there was no threat. It is important to realise that we are having this debate at a time when there is at least the prospect of being able to step back from the rigid, brittle frontiers of terrorist legislation that have blighted much of the democratic debates that the House has had on the issue in recent years.
Members of Parliament can go about their normal business without being surrounded by a House security system on high alert. That is something that we should celebrate. As a caveat to that, I can reveal that my meeting with my right hon. Friend carried a certain amount of risk to me. The Home Secretary was delayed unavoidably at a meeting in Downing street, and a Division was due in the House. I received a pager message telling me that the vote was imminent and I had to notify my right hon. Friend's staff that, if he did not arrive in time, I would have to race out of Queen Anne's gate to reach the House in time for the Division. The Division was called, and I bade a fast farewell, was escorted to the lift and began legging it for all I was worth along the road to try to get back here. Unfortunately, I almost collided with a vehicle as I crossed the road. It turned out to be my right hon. Friend's vehicle. He made excuses for me to the Whips, but I pointed out to him that we were likely to face threats from the Whips—in my case because I had missed the vote and in his case because he had missed me. That was about the level of the risk that we faced.
However, the Bill's definition of terrorism spreads the notion of threat and risk in a way that raises serious questions about the Bill's credibility and about the erosion of civil liberties in our society. I am certain that this definitional clause, which is pivotal to the Bill, must be re-examined. Sadly, the Government declined to do so on Second Reading and in Committee.
The definition is far too wide. The concept of terrorism that it advances is fundamentally flawed. It is deeply damaging to the openness of our society, to the primacy of civil and criminal law in our society, and to the respect in which that law is held.
On Second Reading, I urged the Government to look again at the definition of terrorism contained in the Reinsurance (Acts of Terrorism) Act 1993, which is currently in force. That Act defines acts of terrorism as the acts of
persons acting on behalf of, or in connection with, any organisation which carries out activities directed towards the overthrowing or influencing, by force or violence, of Her Majesty's government in the United Kingdom or any other government de jure or de facto.
I accept that that definition is probably insufficient, as it talks of threats to the Government rather than to governance. We must acknowledge that terrorist threats can be directed against all parties in a Parliament, not just the Government. We must also accept that terrorist threats can seek to disrupt civil society to coerce or undermine the functioning of governance.
I would have had no qualms if the Government had returned with a definition that had been expanded in those terms. I understand that the definition proposed by my hon. Friend the Member for Hull, North is based on suggestions from the Northern Ireland Human Rights Commission. My attempt is based on the wording used in the Australian criminal code, and I am sure that Liberty has offered advice on the wording used in the Liberal Democrat version. However, any of those alternatives would be a welcome departure from the broad-brush definition in the Bill.
The definitions proposed in the amendments would help the House to avoid the sophistry or the confusion involved in redefining terrorism in terms of threats to person or property, rather than to the prospects of governance and to civil society. Briefly, my preference would be that terrorist acts would be defined as acts that create public fear in order to coerce or undermine institutions of democratic governance.
The important point is that terrorist acts threaten the functioning of society and state, not the security of individuals and property within that society. That is adequately covered in our framework of civil and criminal law—as it should be—but it is wrong for the House to be confused about the reach of anti-terrorist legislation and the reliability of criminal and civil legislation. By failing to grasp this point, the Government have produced a definition that must be amended if we are to avoid the horrendous social division and wretched undermining of civil rights that would follow from it.
9.30 pm
I should like to illustrate some of the catch-all consequences of not amending the definition. Clause 1 refers to serious violence against any person or property as part of
advancing a political, religious or ideological cause.
We need to take stock of where that leads. Almost all Labour Members would have to list a long catalogue of causes with which they have been directly associated, in their careers in Parliament and outside, and which would be caught under the new rubric of the definition of terrorism.
People participating in the miners' strike and Grunwick were responsible for serious damage to property. Their motivation was undoubtedly political or ideological. Regardless of whether they were dealt with well or badly, they were properly dealt with under the framework of


industrial and criminal law. It would be wrong for us simply to presume that what was missing at the time was the ability of the Government of the day to redefine those activities as acts of terrorism.

Mr. Hogg: The hon. Gentleman is looking back on his youth, when he was no doubt a participant in some of the anti-Vietnam demonstrations. In his middle years, he may well have been a participant in the community charge demonstrations in Trafalgar square. Will he reflect on the fact that both those activities undoubtedly fall within the scope of clause 1 and are therefore potentially terrorist acts?

Mr. Simpson: I accept the right hon. and learned Gentleman's propositions. I will try and list the other charges that I would like to be taken into account.

Mr. John McDonnell: There is no time for that.

Mr. Simpson: The causes with which Labour Members have identified and which would be caught under the definition would include activities at Greenham common and those of the women at Menwith Hill, who regularly take down the fencing at the American spy base. They would include the activities of the women involved in the Trident Ploughshares campaign and those who broke in and damaged the Hawk aircraft. They would include the activities of animal rights protesters, activists who knowingly destroy fields of genetically modified crops and those who oppose live animal exports. From a different political perspective, they would also include the activities of anti-abortion campaigners.
It is not a matter of whether I agree with those campaigns. If people commit breaches of the criminal law, they should be dealt with under that criminal law. But it is quite wrong for us to give the Government the power to redefine whole tranches of social protest movements as though they were acts of terrorism. The implications for society are horrendous.

Mr. Robert Marshall-Andrews: Will my hon. Friend reflect on an example that he has not given? I refer to support for the African National Congress during the course of the apartheid struggle. It is a singular problem for one of our distinguished Ministers of State in the Foreign and Commonwealth Office that last week he would have lost his right to jury trial in respect of the bank theft with which he was unjustly charged, and this week he would be prosecuted under clause 1 for his activities regarding the ANC. As the same can be said for most of us, it would have been a happy band of brothers in the dock.

Mr. Simpson: I thank my hon. and learned Friend for those comments. As usual, he is several steps ahead of where I intended to go, but he is right.
Where would those caught in the net of the new definition of terrorism find themselves? Clause 1(1)(c) refers to terrorism if there is
a serious risk to the health or safety of the public.
Again, such terrorism could be driven by support for a political or ideological cause. Where would that place the threat of strikes within essential public services—the national health service or the fire service—or by air traffic

control and power workers? Could many of those workers find themselves not in breach of employment law, but being charged with terrorist offences?
The decision warrants much more serious thought and reflection, rather than calling on an in-built majority, which may be used in pursuit of an act of folly.
People who are so charged would face a number of consequences, which are defined in later clauses. They would certainly be exposed to the prospect of arrest without warrant, which is defined in clause 40. They might also be guilty by association. Clauses 15 to 18 define the framework within which groups of people will be committing terrorist offences if they raise funds for such causes and organisations or encourage others to do so. If they are found guilty of those charges, they will face a prison sentence of up to 14 years.
Clause 19 almost provides for guilt by suspicion. If one suspects that a person—perhaps a relation, someone who lives next door or whom one works alongside—supports one of the proscribed causes, but one fails to notify a constable, one is also guilty of an offence, for which one could be imprisoned for up to five years. Many hon. Members who were not directly involved in some of the campaigns that I listed would certainly have attended meetings and fund-raising events in support of those self same causes.

Mr. Norman Baker: The hon. Gentleman's case is persuasive. He has set out the huge implications for civil liberties if the clause is not amended. That case could have been made by any principled Labour or Liberal Democrat Member in the past 20 years. Can he explain why the Government are failing to hear his logic or that of my hon. Friend the Member for Southwark, North and Bermondsey (Mr. Hughes)?

Mr. Simpson: I am afraid that the hon. Gentleman will have to wait a long time for such an explanation. I cannot come up with one for myself, let alone for anyone else. It is utterly perplexing that we should apparently be wedded to a definition that threatens to undermine so sweepingly civil liberties and the credibility of governance itself. I cannot fathom why we should feel propelled to charge down such a catastrophic path.
However, it does not end there. As my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Medway (Mr. Marshall-Andrews) pointed out, clause 1(2)(c), which sets the provision in an international context, means that large numbers of us who actively supported the anti-apartheid campaign, the case for freeing Nelson Mandela, and the African National Congress, would clearly have been in breach of this Bill. It would be a wonderful way to get shot of a Labour majority at a stroke—it might even clear our Benches entirely. That would be the electoral aspiration of most of the Opposition parties. However, such heroic acts of self-sacrifice are not to be recommended to the Government—certainly not from within the Labour party.

Mr. Jeremy Corbyn: My hon. Friend has made much of the past in South Africa. Is he aware that, at present, in many countries, even wholly peaceful opposition forces to military dictatorships are routinely labelled as terrorist organisations by their Governments? Under the Bill, someone from a country that is deemed to have an independent judicial service—


however doubtful some of us might be about that definition—could be prosecuted in this country for being part of a peaceful, exiled opposition to the Government of such a country.

Mr. Simpson: I realise that. It is important to make the serious point that the international dimension is not only reminiscence; it relates to conditions in today's world. The definition would apply not only to conflict with a Government; it could apply equally to the Ogoni people's conflict with Shell and Shell's property. It could apply to the conflict between Amazonian Indians and the logging corporations that would destroy their natural habitat, their lives and livelihood. The reach of this definitional clause is frightening in its implications.
Moreover, there is a serious prospect that the international roles played by organisations such as Greenpeace, Friends of the Earth, Christian Aid or War on Want could be defined as collusively involved in active terrorism, because those organisations support actions that confront the power of corporations and may damage their property. We have made a fundamental misjudgment of what a relevant and appropriate definition of terrorism should be in the Bill.
In the world in which we are trying to function and of which we are trying to make sense, one of the strong motive forces is power and pressure from global corporations. They want terrorist legislation to protect their property. They want us to put the protection of corporate fiefdoms at the head of civil societies. By including the property reference in our definition, we would be doing precisely that.
Global organisations are already conducting a battle of language through much of the campaign literature that they produce. They refer to environmental protesters as "environmental terrorists". They want us to describe those who protest against the building of roads, dams and oil extraction plants and against forest exploitation not as eco-protesters, but as eco-terrorists. That is what the Bill would do. It would give a facade of protection to corporate fiefdoms through repressive legislation.

Mr. McNamara: Does my hon. Friend agree that many corporate organisations are themselves arming dissidents to protect their property?

Mr. Simpson: Indeed. The one solace that I might have drawn from the measure would have been if it gave the House the power to prosecute those corporations under terrorism provisions, rather than to prosecute those who protest against the corporations. Sadly, the opposite will be true; the exploitation of people and the planet will not be reined in by the Bill.
If the House is to understand anti-terrorism legislation, that legislation must address extraordinary circumstances. It is not legislation for all seasons and, because it addresses extraordinary circumstances, it must have extraordinary clarity. The definitional clause does not offer that. On the contrary, it offers confusion and a potential threat to the security and stability of civil society, which is in excess of any threat that it could claim to remove or to offer protection from. That is why I ask the House, and the Government, to support the amendment.
The existing definition will be as counter-productive as it is repressive. What begins by putting society in chains will end by putting the Government on trial. If we do not amend the definition, the House will be found wanting.

Mr. Hogg: I find myself in considerable sympathy with the points made by the hon. Member for Nottingham, South (Mr. Simpson), and I broadly support what he said.
We need to understand that this debate is right at the heart of the Bill because the definition of terrorism is the Bill's essential focus for the reason advanced by the hon. Member for Southwark, North and Bermondsey (Mr. Hughes), which is that if an activity falls within the definition, the whole weight of the Bill falls on the individuals and institutions concerned. He cited some of those consequences, which include restrictions on the power to raise money, the rights of entry of the police and the right to require answers to questions. They are all detailed in the Bill.
The question that we must all ask about any activity is not whether it should be criminal, but whether the additional consequences contained in the Bill should fall on the individuals and institutions involved. In my view, there are many activities that are manifestly criminal but that should not in any circumstances be deemed terrorist. I think of two groups who perform activities that I particularly dislike. The first is hunt saboteurs. The second is GM protesters, of whom I do not think very much. However, I ask myself whether their activities should be deemed terrorist. The hon. Member for Nottingham, South mentioned many activities, and some of them should be criminal and some should not, but none of them should be deemed terrorist.
Those who demonstrated in Trafalgar square against the community charge committed serious offences against the criminal law, but I ask myself whether that was intrinsically a terrorist activity. I think back to the days of the anti-apartheid demonstrations, which the hon. and learned Member for Medway (Mr. Marshall-Andrews) cited. The great majority of hon. Members, whether or not they approved of the demonstrations and what happened in them, would agree that in no sense should they be classed as terrorist. An example from my youth is the anti-Vietnam demonstrations. To be honest, I do not like demonstrations of any kind because they almost always involve violence and their character is often criminal, but in no sense should they be deemed terrorist.
Once one starts from the proposition that that range of activities should not be classed as terrorist, one goes to the Bill and, I regret to say, the amendments, and starts by considering the Government's definition of terrorism. I am sure that Ministers will forgive me for saying that the definition means that all the activities to which I have referred run the risk of falling within the category of a terrorist activity, which is not to say that they would always fall within that category. That risk cannot be right.

Mr. Marshall-Andrews: Will the right hon. and learned Gentleman reflect on the fact that these proceedings in the House are intrinsically linked to last week's proceedings? The truth is that if many of those offences were charged as terrorism, a jury would have no problem in throwing out such nonsense. The offences would plainly fall within the definition of terrorism,


but no jury would have any of it. However, taken with the erosion of the right to jury trial, these two parallel moves are deeply worrying.

Mr. Hogg: I agree only in part with the hon. and learned Gentleman. He and I have agreed in many ways for 30 years, even though we come from different political traditions; we have known and worked with each other for many years. I shall not digress far, Mr. Deputy Speaker, but he and I stood together against the legislation that restricted trial by jury, because we both disagreed with the proposals that it contained. One of the reasons was that juries act as the public conscience: sometimes, when the elements of an offence are made out, the consequences appear so absurd that the jury as the public conscience recognises the absurdity and refuses to convict. The point on which I disagree with him is that he appears to be affected by a slight misconception. Clause 1 does not create new offences; it triggers consequences and attracts penalties and sanctions to those individuals who are doing things that are classified as terrorist. Therefore, his point is not quite the same as mine, although it is very nearly the same.

Mr. McDonnell: The right hon. and learned Gentleman will agree that clause 1 also confers new powers, specifically in respect of the police. If the clause had been in force, the poll tax demonstration could have been prevented—he might think that would have been a good thing—as could any demonstration on the say so of one constable saying that a terrorism investigation was under way.

Mr. Hogg: The hon. Gentleman is wholly right, and that point lies at the core of my objections.
I hear mutterings from the Treasury Bench, so I shall face their source. Ministers say that clause 1 does not have the wide effect that we say that it does; well, let us examine clause 1 and see whether two activities—those I especially dislike: the actions of hunt saboteurs, and the anti-poll tax demonstration—fall within the class of clause 1 terrorist activity.
The clause states:
terrorism" means the use or threat, for the purpose of advancing a political, religious or ideological cause, of action.
Let us start with the purpose test. Hunt saboteurs are certainly advancing an ideological cause—they would say so and, as a matter of law, they would be right; so would the police, and they would be right too. The community charge demonstrators in Trafalgar square were certainly advancing a political cause and, for that matter, an ideological cause. Therefore, the purpose test is made out.
Of course, such activities are not "terrorist" unless they fall foul of subsections (1)(a), (b) and (c). Subsection (1)(a) speaks of action that
involves serious violence against any person or property.
In Trafalgar square, there was serious violence against both persons and property. In many demonstrations against fox hunting, serious violence is committed against persons and property. The clause continues, referring to action that
endangers the life of any person.

In Trafalgar square, the police were very much at risk and they said so at the time. Subsection (1)(c) refers to action that
creates a serious risk to the health or safety of the public or a section of the public.
Fox hunters consider themselves to be at serious risk, and the Trafalgar square rioters certainly put the public at serious risk.
There is absolutely no doubt that the classes of activity that I have described fall within the scope of clause 1. It is misleading for Ministers to deny that.

Mr. Fisher: The right hon. and learned Gentleman lays great emphasis on the word "action", but is not clause 1 more complicated, and its implications worse, than he has said, in that the threat of action triggers the same consequences as action itself? Therefore a letter to a newspaper threatening to commit such action, or an interview on a local radio station in which a person announces his intention, or hope, of burning a field of GM crops, would bring all the consequences triggered under clause 1. Does not the definition used in the clause throw our definition of terrorism far too wide?

Mr. Hogg: I was focusing on the most graphic examples, but the hon. Gentleman is wholly right. The threat is sufficient to constitute the activity as potentially terrorist. The House would agree a wrong thing if it accepted the clause.
There have been attempts to address the problem in several amendments, my own included. The hon. Member for Hull, North (Mr. McNamara) produced one set of amendments, the hon. Member for Southwark, North and Bermondsey another. I modestly produced a third—amendment No. 200, which was not selected.
I hope that the hon. Gentlemen will forgive me if I say that they have not resolved the problem. If they ask themselves the rhetorical question—I shall not take them through the detail, as I have already done so—"Would the fox hunting saboteurs be caught by their amendments?", the answer is yes.
I see the hon. Member for Southwark, North and Bermondsey looking at his amendment No. 190. In the purpose section, it states:
to intimidate or coerce a government, one or more political bodies or organisations, the public or—
this is what I underline—
any section of the public for political ends.
Let us consider the last set of phrases and ask ourselves whether hunt saboteurs fall within that group. They certainly create a serious risk to the health or safety of the public—that is, fox hunters—with the purpose of coercing those who go fox hunting. I am using the example of fox hunting because I must use an example, but the same applies to the demonstrators in Trafalgar square, and I can perform exactly the same exercise with exactly the same consequences to the amendment moved by the hon. Member for Hull, North.
We must come to a conclusion. I believe that none of the amendments sufficiently addresses the problem that I have identified. I tried to do so through amendment No. 200, which narrows the definition of "violence" so that violence constitutes only threats to life. Even that is imperfect. The truth, I suspect, is that we cannot properly


reconcile what the Government seek to do—I accept their good motives—with the aims of those of us who want to defend civil liberties and political freedoms.
My belief is that the difficulties associated with the definition are so great as to mean that the Bill is fatally flawed. That is the conclusion to which I think I come. It may be that others cleverer than I, here or in another place, can so define "terrorism" that it does not have the objectionable consequences which I believe that the present definition has. However, they have not done so yet. They have tried, but I suspect that they will not succeed. If that is indeed the case, the clause and most of the Bill should be rejected.

Mr. Gapes: I shall try to be brief. I speak as someone who supported the African National Congress, opposed the Vietnam war and supported non-violent direct action. The past hour has been a litany of scare stories and worst-case scenarios such as I have seldom heard.
My constituents and most people in the United Kingdom want to be able to travel on international aircraft without threat of being blown up. They want to be able to have a meal in McDonald's, as two of my close friends were doing when damage to the ceiling was caused by the Canary wharf bombing. They want to be able to go about their lives without the threat of internationally motivated, funded and organised terrorism. That is the essence of the Bill.
My hon. Friend the Member for Nottingham, South (Mr. Simpson) said that there was no threat. I do not know which world he is living in. The world contains well-organised, well-funded international terrorist organisations which operate in one country, plan their activities in a second country, have members who live in a third country, and get their finance from a fourth country. The Bill is trying to provide for effective anti-terrorism legislation. We can debate definitions of terrorism, and I accept that there are difficulties. However, we should not put ourselves in a position where, because of arguments about definition—

It being Ten o'clock, the debate stood adjourned.

Motion made, and Question put forthwith, pursuant to Standing Order No. 15 (Exempted business),

That, at this day's sitting, the Terrorism Bill may be proceeded with, though opposed, until any hour.—[Mrs. McGuire.]

The House divided: Ayes 279, Noes 40.

Division No. 110]
[10 pm


AYES


Ainger, Nick
Begg, Miss Anne


Ainsworth, Robert (Cov'try NE)
Beggs, Roy


Alexander, Douglas
Bell, Martin (Tatton)


Allen, Graham
Benn, Hilary (Leeds C)


Anderson, Donald (Swansea E)
Bennett, Andrew F


Anderson, Janet (Rossendale)
Benton, Joe


Armstrong, Rt Hon Ms Hilary
Bermingham, Gerald


Ashton, Joe
Berry, Roger


Atkins, Charlotte
Best, Harold


Austin, John
Blackman, Liz


Banks, Tony
Blears, Ms Hazel


Barnes, Harry
Boateng, Rt Hon Paul


Battle, John
Borrow, David


Beard, Nigel
Bradley, Keith (Withington)


Beckett, Rt Hon Mrs Margaret
Bradshaw, Ben





Brinton, Mrs Helen
Hall, Mike (Weaver Vale)


Browne, Desmond
Hall, Patrick (Bedford)


Burgon, Colin
Hamilton, Fabian (Leeds NE)


Butler, Mrs Christine
Hanson, David


Campbell, Alan (Tynemouth)
Harman, Rt Hon Ms Harriet


Campbell, Mrs Anne (C'bridge)
Heal, Mrs Sylvia


Campbell, Ronnie (Blyth V)
Healey, John


Campbell-Savours, Dale
Hepburn, Stephen


Cann, Jamie
Heppell, John


Caplin, Ivor
Hill, Keith


Casale, Roger
Hinchliffe, David


Cawsey, Ian
Hodge, Ms Margaret


Chapman, Ben (Wirral S)
Hope, Phil


Chaytor, David
Howarth Alan (Newport E)


Clapham, Michael
Howells, Dr Kim



Hoyle, Lindsay


Clark, Dr Lynda (Edinburgh Pentlands)
Hughes, Ms Beverley (Stretford)



Hughes, Kevin (Doncaster N)


Clark, Paul (Gillingham)
Hurst, Alan


Clarke, Charles (Norwich S)
Hutton, John


Clelland, David
Iddon, Dr Brian


Clwyd, Ann
Illsley, Eric


Coaker, Vernon
Ingram, Rt Hon Adam


Coffey, Ms Ann
Jackson, Helen (Hillsborough)


Cohen, Harry
Jenkins, Brian


Colman, Tony
Johnson, Alan (Hull W & Hessle)


Connarty, Michael
Johnson, Miss Melanie (Welwyn Hatfield)


Cook, Frank (Stockton N)



Cooper, Yvette
Jones, Rt Hon Barry (Alyn)


Corbyn, Jeremy
Jones, Mrs Fiona (Newark)


Corston, Jean
Jones, Helen (Warrington N)


Cousins, Jim
Jones, Ms Jenny (Wolverh'ton SW)


Cox, Tom



Cranston, Ross
Jones Jon Owen (Cardiff C)


Crausby, David
Jones, Dr Lynee (Selly Oak)


Cryer, Mrs Ann (Keighley)
Jones, Martyn (Clwyd S)


Cryer, John (Honrchurch)
Keeble, Ms Sally


Cummings, John
Keen, Alan (Feltham & Heston)


Cunningham, Jim (Cov'try S)
Kemp, Fraser


Curtis-Thomas, Mrs Claire
Kennedy, Jane (Wavertree)


Darvill, Keith
Khabra, Piara S


Davey, Valerie (Bristol W)
Kidney, David


Davies, Rt Hon Denzil (Llanelli)
Kilfoyle, Peter


Davies Geraint (Croydon C)
Kumar, Dr Ashok



Laxton, Bob


Dawson, Hilton
Lepper, David


Donaldson, Jeffrey
Leslie, Christopher


Dowd, Jim
Levitt, Tom


Drew, David
Lewis, Ivan (Bury S)


Eagle, Angela (Wallasey)
Linton, Martin


Eagle, Maria (L'pool Garston)
Lock, David


Edwards, Huw
Love, Andrew


Ennis, Jeff
McAvoy, Thomas


Etherington, Bill
McCabe, Steve


Fisher, Mark
McDonagh, Siobhain


Flint, Caroline
McDonnell, John


Flynn, Paul
McFall, John


Forsythe, Clifford
McGuire, Mrs Anne


Foster, Rt Hon Derek
McIsaac, Shona


Foster, Michael Jabez (Hastings)
Mackinlay, Andrew


Foster, Michael J (Worcester)
McNamara, Kevin


Gapes, Mike
Mactaggart, Fiona


George, Bruce (Walsall S)
McWalter, Tony


Gibson, Dr Ian
McWilliam, John



Maginnis, Ken


Gilroy, Mrs Linda
Mahon, Mrs Alice


Godman, Dr Norman A
Mallaber, Judy


Godsiff, Roger
Marsden, Paul (Shrewsbury)


Goggins, Paul
Marshall, Jim (Leicester S)


Golding, Mrs Llin
Marshall-Andrews, Robert


Gordon, Mrs Eileen
Maxton, John


Griffiths, Jane (Reading E)
Meacher, Rt Hon Michael


Griffiths, Nigel (Edinburgh S)
Meale, Alan


Griffiths, Win (Bridgend)
Merron, Gillian


Grogan, John
Miller, Andrew


Gunnell, John
Moffatt, Laura






Moonie, Dr Lewis
Smith, Miss Geraldine (Morecambe & Lunesdale)


Moran, Ms Margaret



Morgan, Ms Julie (Cardiff N)
Smith, Jacqui (Redditch)


Morley, Elliot
Smith, John (Glamorgan)


Morris, Rt Hon Ms Estelte (B'ham Yardley)
Smith, Llew (Blaenau Gwent)



Smyth, Rev Martin (Belfast S)


Mountford, Kali
Soley, Clive


Murphy, Denis (Wansbeck)
Southworth, Ms Helen


Murphy, Rt Hon Paul (Torfaen)
Squire, Ms Rachel


Naysmith, Dr Doug
Starkey, Dr Phyllis


O'Brien, Bill (Normanton)
Steinberg, Gerry


O'Brien, Mike (N Warks)
Stewart, David (Inverness E)


O'Hara, Eddie
Stinchcombe, Paul


Olner, Bill
Stoate, Dr Howard


O'Neill, Martin
Strang, Rt Hon Dr Gavin


Organ, Mrs Diana
Straw, Rt Hon Jack


Pearson, Ian
Stringer, Graham


Pendry, Tom
Stuart, Ms Gisela


Pickthall, Colin
Sutcliffe, Gerry


Pike, Peter L
Taylor, Rt Hon Mrs Ann (Dewsbury)


Plaskitt, James



Pollard, Kerry
Taylor, Ms Dari (Stockton S)


Pond, Chris
Taylor, David (NW Leics)


Pope, Greg
Taylor, Rt Hon John D (Strangford)


Pound, Stephen
Thomas, Gareth R (Harrow W)


Prentice, Ms Bridget (Lewisham E)
Thompson, William


Prosser, Gwyn
Timms, Stephen


Purchase, Ken
Tipping, Paddy


Quin, Rt Hon Ms Joyce
Todd, Mark


Quinn, Lawrie
Touhig, Don


Radice, Rt Hon Giles
Trickett, Jon


Rammell, Bill
Turner, Dennis (Wolverth'ton SE)


Rapson, Syd
Turner, Dr Desmond (Kemptown)


Raynsford, Nick
Turner, Neil (Wigan)


Robinson, Peter (Belfast E)
Twigg, Stephen (Enfield)


Roche, Mrs Barbara
Tynan, Bill


Rogers, Allan
Vis, Dr Rudi


Rooker, Rt Hon Jeff
Ward, Ms Claire


Rooney, Terry
Watts, David


Ross, Ernie (Dundee W)
White, Brian


Rowlands, Ted
Williams, Rt Hon Alan (Swansea W)


Ruane, Chris
Williams, Alan W (E Carmarthen)


Russell, Ms Christine (Chester)
Williams, Mrs Betty (Conwy)


Ryan, Ms Joan
Winnick, David


Salter, Martin
Winterton, Ms Rosie (Doncaster C)


Sawford, Phil
Wise, Audrey


Sedgemore, Brian
Wood, Mike


Shaw, Jonathan
Woolas, Phil


Shipley, Ms Debra
Worthington, Tony


Short, Rt Hon Clare
Wright, Anthony D (Gt Yarmouth)


Simpson, Alan (Nottingham S)
Wyatt, Derek


Singh, Marsha



Skinner, Dennis
Tellers for the Ayes:


Smith, Rt Hon Andrew (Oxford E)
Mr. David Jamieson and


Smith, Angela (Basildon)
Mr. Clive Betts.




NOES


Allan, Richard
Heath, David (Somerton & Frome)


Ashdown, Rt Hon Paddy
Hogg, Rt Hon Douglas


Ballard, Jackie
Hughes, Simon (Southwark N)


Beith, Rt Hon A J
Kennedy, Rt Hon Charles (Ross Skye & Inverness W)


Breed, Colin



Bruce, Malcolm (Gordon)
Livsey, Richard


Burnett, John
Llwyd, Elfyn


Burstow, Paul
Maclennan, Rt Hon Robert


Campbell, Rt Hon Menzies (NE Fife)
Michie, Mrs Ray (Argyll & Bute)



Moore, Michael


Chidgey, David
Morgan, Alasdair (Galloway)


Cotter, Brian
Oaten, Mark


Davey, Edward (Kingston)
Rendel, David


Fearn, Ronnie
Russell, Bob (Colchester)


Foster, Don (Bath)
Sanders, Adrian


George, Andrew (St Ives)
Smith, Sir Robert (W Ab'd'ns)


Hancock, Mike
Stunell, Andrew


Harris, Dr Evan
Taylor, Matthew (Truro)





Thomas, Simon (Ceredigion)
Willis, Phil


Tonge, Dr Jenny



Tyler, Paul
Tellers for the Noes:


Wallace, James
Mr. Tom Brake and


Webb, Steve
Mr. Norman Baker.

Question accordingly agreed to.

As amended in the Standing Committee, again considered.

Question again proposed, That the amendment be made.

Mr. Gapes: As I was saying, the legislation is important in enabling the country to play its role in the international fight against terrorism. We were told by earlier speakers that, for some reason the definition should be changed to exclude—[Interruption.]

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. I am sorry to interrupt, but we are in the middle of a serious debate, and the hon. Member for Ilford, South (Mr. Gapes) is entitled to a reasonable hearing.

Mr. Gapes: Thank you, Mr. Deputy Speaker.
The Liberal Democrats have told us that they want to exclude reference to property. I want to raise two issues which I think show the error of their position.
First, let us suppose that a terrorist organisation decided to blow up the Eros statue, Nelson's column or the Palace of Westminster, having, in the latter case, given considerable notice allowing the evacuation of the Houses of Parliament. Presumably, according to the Liberal Democrats' definition, those perpetrating the crime would not be subject to a charge of terrorism.
Secondly, there is the problem of the intentions of those who commit crimes. Presumably, at least according to the Liberal Democrats' barristers, if a person attacked a building or monument with the intention of not injuring human life, but if someone happened to be in the building or was passing it, that person's defence would be that he had had no intention of endangering life, and he would therefore be acquitted.

Mr. Hogg: The hon. Gentleman is making a fundamental error. Those involved in his two examples could be charged with other substantive offences under the criminal law, but the Bill does not create an offence of terrorism.

Mr. Gapes: I refer the right hon. and learned Gentleman to the definition in clause 1, which states that
terrorism" means the use or threat, for the purpose of advancing a political, religious or ideological cause, of action which … involves serious violence … endangers … life … or … creates a serious risk to … health or safety.
My hon. Friend the Member for Nottingham, South implied that the word "which" did not appear in the definition. His argument was based on the assumption that the first sentence in itself would make a person guilty of terrorism—that someone who was committed to an ideological cause would be, by definition, a terrorist. That is absurd.
10.15 pm
I do not believe that, under the Bill, Nelson Mandela could ever have been put on trial. He certainly could not


have been convicted in any court under it. Any Crown Prosecution Service prosecutor who decided to go through that process would not have put him on trial under the Bill. It is palpably absurd to think that there would ever be a conviction.
Similarly, we could use criminal damage or some other legislation, but we could not use terrorism legislation when people destroy crops in fields—one of the scare stories that we have heard. It is fanciful. It is based on worst-case, scare-story scenarios that are designed to frighten people off from introducing effective legislation to combat terrorism.
This country needs legislation, so that it is not a safe haven for people who plan crimes in one country and seek refuge in another. We have had examples of that. We know that the people who perpetrated the fascist bombing in Bologna have been living in Brighton for many years. They planned it, organised it and have been running neo-Nazi book shops in Brighton. It is time that we had effective measures to combat international terrorism, whatever the source.
I hope that the Liberal Democrats will think carefully about their position. This country must be at the forefront of international co-operation. That is what internationalism is about. The Liberal Democrats do themselves and their internationalist ideals a disservice by not being prepared to take internationally effective action to combat terrorism.

Mr. Maginnis: I am sorry that the hon. Member for Hull, North (Mr. McNamara) is not in the Chamber on this unique occasion: for the first time in 17 years, he and I have the same objective. That objective is to define terrorism. However, in case he takes what I say too seriously, may I allude to amendment No. 122, which suggests that we insert
the commission of, or the threat to commit, any criminal act with the intention of
(a) putting the public or any section of the public in fear.
That is such a flawed amendment. It shows the difficulty that we have with the definition of terrorism.
It is a criminal act for a young hooligan to throw fireworks through the letter box of a pensioner and thus endanger that person's life. Under the amendment, that would be not a criminal act, which can be dealt with under normal legislation, but a terrorist offence. That would be folly.
While I am talking about folly, I am rather puzzled by amendment No. 123, which wants to change the phrase
endangers the life of any person
to
seriously endangers the life of any person.
I wonder what the difference is. If the hon. Gentleman endangered my life, I might end up dead. I presume that he means that, if he seriously endangered it, I would end up very dead.

Dr. Godman: Seriously dead.

Mr. Maginnis: Indeed.
At the same time, I have serious concerns about the definition of terrorism in the Bill. I would delete virtually all of clause 1. It is a catch-all, but it does not adequately define what we mean by terrorism.
My definition of terrorism is that it is a conspiracy by three or more persons to use or threaten violence against society and/or property for the purpose of undermining or destroying institutions of the state. In Committee, the Minister displayed commodities that have become rarer during the 17 years that I have been in the House—considerable patience and courtesy. I hope that he will take what I say about the Bill in the spirit in which I intend it.
The Minister inherited an absolute mish-mash. We should have two Bills—one to deal with national terrorism against this democratic state, and another to deal with international terrorism being carried out from within this state against another. That would enable us clearly and meaningfully to define terrorism for, dare I say, the selfish, introverted needs of our own nation.
The problems of legislation on terrorism were highlighted by earlier mentions of that which followed the Omagh bombing. Whatever the good intentions behind it, it has proved unnecessary and has not been used. The Terrorism Bill also contains elements that will never be used because they are impracticable and do not relate to activities that endanger or undermine institutions of the state.
We have a democratic system, and we know what we mean by the institutions of state. The amendment tabled by the hon. Member for Southwark, North and Bermondsey (Mr. Hughes) is too explicit, listing political parties, groups and organisations, all of which are part of the institutions of state, as we understand that phrase. The Minister may be unable to deal with this point now, but when the Bill moves on to another place, I ask him seriously to consider the possibility of defining terrorism in terms of needs within this state and in terms of what can be implemented understandably.
I have nothing more to say. We need two Bills, not one. We need a simple definition of terrorism, based on violence or the threat of violence intended to undermine the institutions of this democratic state.

Mr. Fisher: It is a privilege to follow the hon. Member for Fermanagh and South Tyrone (Mr. Maginnis), who has had to live under the shadow of terrorism as hon. Members from English or Welsh constituencies have not had to do. I listened carefully to his comments and to all of the debate. I was not a Committee member, and therefore was not party to the detailed speculation on the various definitions of terrorism in use in international conventions, in the United Nations and in other countries.
My hon. Friend the Member for Ilford, South (Mr. Gapes), who was on the Committee, seems confused about the Bill. As the right hon. and learned Member for Sleaford and North Hykeham (Mr. Hogg) said, the Bill does not create an offence of terrorism. The offences created by the Bill are in clauses 11, 12 and 13—which deal with belonging to a proscribed organisation, supporting that organisation and wearing the uniform of that organisation. Clause 1 defines terrorism and, by doing so, triggers the very serious and sombre treatment of someone who is so defined. It is essential—not because we are creating an offence of terrorism, which we are not


doing, but because we are creating a sequence of treatment—that we get that definition right. The definition in the Bill is totally baffling and incorrect.
My hon. Friend the Member for Ilford, South is the only person who has spoken in support of the Bill's definition. However, with due respect to him, he did not support the Bill's definition; he supported its aims—to be tough on terrorism. Not a single hon. Member or other person in the United Kingdom has any time for terrorism at all. My hon. Friend therefore chose the wrong subject. We are all with him and the Government in seeking to eliminate terrorism from society. However, in clause 1, we are doing something completely different—we are redefining what we mean by terrorism. Therefore, the wording of clause 1 is crucial.
It is no good my hon. Friend the Member for Ilford, South simply saying that we need not pay attention to worst-case scenarios or to hysterical thinking. If the Bill defines terrorism in such and such a manner, that would become the legal definition of terrorism. However, the Bill's definition of terrorism makes no sense whatsoever.
The crucial words in clause 1 are, first, "use" and "threat"; secondly, "political, religious and ideological" causes; and, thirdly,
serious violence against any person or property.
If we put those three things together, all the possibilities described by my hon. Friend the Member for Nottingham, South (Mr. Simpson), the right hon. and learned Member for Sleaford and North Hykeham and the hon. Member for Southwark, North and Bermondsey (Mr. Hughes) would become real.
A threat is a part of the Bill's definition of terrorism. Therefore, a statement in an interview on a radio station or in a letter to a newspaper that "I intend to burn a crop of GM food" would become part of a terrorist activity. Subsequently, the terrorist activity would be compounded if there were violence, such as burning a crop. If the violence were directed against property—such as a crop—it would also fall within the definition, especially if the violence were being done to serve an ideological purpose, such as pursuing a vendetta against GM crops.
It does not matter whether the purpose of the activity is good or bad. The consequence of the Bill's definition is that it would be a terrorist activity to write a letter saying that one will burn a crop of GM corn. There is no way of getting around that. I do not think that my hon. Friend the Member for Ilford, South would consider that to be a worst-case scenario, but that is what the Bill would entail.
I agree with the right hon. and learned Member for Sleaford and North Hykeham. I am not very keen on hunt saboteurs or some of the actions of people who are against animal experiments. They may have virtuous intent, but their actions are often pretty unpleasant. However, it is nonsense to propose that such people should be defined by our society as terrorists, yet the Bill would do just that.
As my hon. Friend the Member for Nottingham, South said, certainly Labour Members—I suspect Liberal Democrats too—have all been guilty of these things. Certainly during the miners' strike we all pushed down fences and gates. I did it at the Hem Heath colliery, the Florence colliery and elsewhere—

Mr. Hogg: Surely not.

Mr. Fisher: I certainly did and I would do it again as it was in a good cause. The idea that I was committing an act of terrorism is absolute nonsense. I believe that would be generally accepted. As my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Medway (Mr. Marshall-Andrews) who is no longer in his place said, a jury would probably acquit one, but that misses the point of the Bill. It is not about whether or not one would be convicted of terrorism; it is about what is in the Bill. The Bill redefines terrorism in a totally nonsensical way.

Mr. Frank Cook: Will my hon. Friend comment on the case of an individual who sought my help? He was in custody on suspicion of robbing a post office but, for the sake of avoiding the restrictions in criminal law, he had been detained under the PTA. If that can happen under the existing system, what prospect is there of protecting people under the system that is about to be introduced?

Mr. Fisher: I do not know that case, which is an interesting inversion of the proposal we are discussing. I should have thought that the criminal law gave the police and the prosecuting authorities perfectly adequate means of dealing with a person who had committed a criminal offence. As the right hon. and learned Member for Sleaford and North Hykeham, who knows the law better than most of us, has said several times, the criminal law can deal with actions against property and against the person. I cannot think of anything that the criminal law does not cover. That requires us to be much more detailed and specific about what we mean by an act of terrorism that is distinct from normal criminal activity. I was interested in what the hon. Member for Southwark, North and Bermondsey said about the debate in Committee and the various speculations. I am sorry that I was not party to that discussion. It is extremely difficult to establish a definition, and we are not doing so by any of the proposed amendments, well intentioned though they are.
In amendment No. 122, my hon. Friend the Member for Hull, North (Mr. McNamara) concentrates on motivation. I sympathise with the intention behind the amendment, but the criticisms that have been made are valid. Motivation rather misses the point.

Mr. McNamara: My amendment proposes that motivation should not be taken into consideration, but that it should be concentrated on as the cause.

Mr. Fisher: I beg my hon. Friend's indulgence. I am sorry if I misled the House as I would not want to misinterpret his speech.
I sympathise with the thrust of amendment No. 190, but as it retains the words "violence against the person" and the word "threat", it does not overcome some of my objections.

Mr. Simon Hughes: We are all seeking a way forward. Between us, at least we have proposed a way of getting rid of some of the mischief. For example, amendment No. 193 would exclude violence to property with no risk to the public or individuals. I am sure that the hon.


Gentleman realises that to make the Bill perfect may require a combination of factors, but after tonight at least it will be better—and narrower—than it was when it first came to the House.

Mr. Fisher: I do not want to go too far down that path, because the House wants to make progress, but I think that the amendments are all designed to pare away certain elements rather than identifying what is specific about terrorism. Surely a threat to the security of the state is at the heart of what most of us mean by terrorism as well as of most dictionary and legal definitions. None of the amendments quite achieves the aim.
The hon. Member for Southwark, North and Bermondsey says that we are doing our best, but now that we are launched on the path of legislation we have to get it right, in another place if not here. I feel that we are very far from an adequate definition that would not be too wide for anybody with any flicker of libertarianism. As a libertarian, I am offended and deeply worried by the definition in the Bill. I will not vote for any of the amendments, but I cannot do what I presume the Government will ask and vote against them, because by so doing I would be implicitly supporting the definition in the Bill, which is dangerous, misguided and inadequate. I do not understand what led the Government to it. It is totally baffling.
If the Government are simply sending a message that they are tough on terrorism and tough on the causes of terrorism, as my hon. Friend the Member for Ilford, South said, we would all say yea to that, but the definition goes much wider than that, and it is tough on many things that many of us would feel are totally outwith the ambit of terrorism.
The fact that we have so many Government amendments says something about the inadequacy of resources for parliamentary drafting in recent years, but on so crucial a matter I do not believe that bad drafting can be blamed. I wait to hear what the Minister and the Government are seeking to do, but I am perfectly convinced that the definition in the Bill simply will not do.

Mr. Lidington: The thrust of the amendments is to limit the scope of the definition of terrorism in clause 1. Some of them are designed to define terrorism more closely in terms of people with political rather than other objectives and others to delete references to attacks on property or to actions affecting persons and property overseas.
I want to put my party's approach on the record. We accept that, as the Minister has acknowledged at all previous stages of our proceedings, there is a difficult balancing act to strike between effective counter-terrorism law and civil liberties. It is right that, throughout the Bill's passage through both Houses of Parliament, the detail of the definition of terrorism should be kept under review.
I firmly believe that we need to have on the statute book powers for the police and the Executive against terrorist organisations. We need powers to search, to restrict fundraising and to detain. Those conclusions are shared not only by Conservative Members but by independent examiners of the legislation, including

Lord Lloyd of Berwick and Professor Wilkinson, who were appointed by the Government to carry out a thorough-going review of the law on terrorism.
I believe, too, that it is right that this legislation should cover acts in respect of property. We surely cannot put ourselves in the lunatic situation in which an attack by the Provisional IRA on an empty office block, a railway junction, an airport building or Westminster Hall should somehow fall outwith the scope of anti-terrorism legislation because it had taken care to ensure that no human being would be at risk. If we adopted that approach, we would be saying to the police, "You may know from your intelligence that the Provisional IRA is responsible for that act of terrorism but, because of the way that we have drafted the definition, you are not allowed to use the powers of detention, stop and search and arrest that we have provided for you and other agencies in this legislation."
In amendment No. 146, I have sought to address the worries that have been expressed that the Bill allows too wide a scope for actions against property alone to be brought within the law, and I welcome the Minister's comments on that in due course.

Dr. Lynne Jones: I take the hon. Gentleman's point that the Bill should apply to the IRA in the circumstances that he has described, but surely it should be possible to word the clause that would catch such action. For example, the action against property could be coupled with the endangering of life, because the blowing up of such a large piece of property would be certain to endanger human life.

Mr. Lidington: As regards property, it is right that the Bill should contain a general provision of the kind that the Government suggest. We can argue about the exact words that we would prefer but, given the ruthlessness and dedication of terrorist organisations, we need to include attacks against property, because they can be used to disrupt life in this country and other democratic societies as a means of intimidating the population and their Governments.

Mr. Hogg: I do not think that many people would disagree with some parts of what my hon. Friend has said, but he needs to answer this question—if the result of drafting clauses that catch the IRA in the way that he has described is that they also catch many other organisations that are not trying to subvert the state, is it right to follow the course that he advocates?

Mr. Lidington: It was made clear in Committee when the Minister responded to the concerns that had been expressed by several hon. Members about the matter that the Government envisaged that, in the normal course of events, most criminal offences would continue to be dealt with under the normal procedures of the criminal law. My right hon. and learned Friend is obviously worried that to trust in the judgment of the police and the courts is inadequate and that a new definition needs to be written into the law. However, I feel that we would fail in our duty if we narrowed the definition to such an extent that it failed to provide adequate protection against terrorist groups that have shown repeatedly that they are utterly careless of human life and well-being.
It is also right that the Bill should cover domestic terrorism and more than purely political objectives. We have seen the example of the Aum sect in Tokyo and the havoc that it wrought against innocent civilians. Some of the extreme, well-organised animal rights groups might also properly be treated as terrorist, because they are organised and have in the past used car bombs and like measures to harm men and women who are not politicians but research scientists or otherwise connected with a company whose policies on experimentation the groups seek to influence.
It is right that the Bill should cover action overseas as well as in the United Kingdom, but I retain some reservations about that and 1 hope that the Government will reflect on the definition that they have applied. Given the attack on the United States embassy in Kenya, the outrages in the middle east and the assassination of democratic leaders such as Rajiv Gandhi, it seems right that our anti-terrorist legislation should catch the perpetrators of such crimes.
10.45 pm
Genuine unease has been expressed about whether the safeguards suggested by the Bill are adequate. One man's terrorist is another's freedom fighter: how does one deal with that problem? How does one deal with the difficulty caused when a group of people in the United Kingdom call for the overthrow by force of a tyrant in another country? The examples of Saddam Hussein and others were mentioned frequently earlier.
Hon. Members have been right to draw such matters to the Minister's attention. I hope that the Government will continue to reflect on them as the Bill continues its passage through Parliament.

Mr. Charles Clarke: From the outset, the Government have been keen to emphasise the difficulty of defining this important matter. We have said, clearly and explicitly, that a balance must be drawn between the need to fight international terrorism—many reports confirm that that is a real threat in the modern world, which we must combat if we are to protect our citizens—and the need to protect individual liberties. That is a very hard question of judgment.
On Second Reading on 14 December—three months and one day ago—my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary and I both stated that we were ready to consider other, better wordings and definitions to deal with these matters. We said that we were prepared to look at better forms of definition, and I repeated that commitment more than once in Committee. Much of this evening's debate has centred on questions of wording.
I want to take this opportunity to thank Liberty and the Northern Ireland Human Rights Commission. Both organisations have made serious efforts to draft alternative clauses in response to the invitation from me and my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary. Their work is to be commended. Although I do not agree with every word that they offered, I accept that they took on the challenge, acknowledged the importance of addressing the problem of international terrorism, and sought a better definition than the one offered by the Government.
It would be churlish not to acknowledge those two pieces of work, which underlie the amendments tabled by my hon. Friend the Member for Hull, North (Mr. McNamara) and by the hon. Member for Southwark, North and Bermondsey (Mr. Hughes).
The Government started from the viewpoint that the definitions in the prevention of terrorism and emergency provisions legislation had operated effectively and that changes should be made only where they could be justified. We were also firmly of the view that it was no longer defensible to confine the legislation to Irish and international terrorism, and to exclude the application of the definition to acts connected solely to the affairs of the United Kingdom.
It is striking that, although there is much debate about what actions constitute so-called domestic terrorism, it appears to be generally agreed that the time has come to accept that some such actions should be caught. In deciding on a definition to put before the House, we also considered carefully the advice of Lord Lloyd. I shall not rehearse earlier debates, but we took very careful account of what he had to say.
Finally, and most importantly, we bore in mind the purpose of the new definition as we worked it up. As I have stressed many times, there is no linked offence of terrorism. As is the case now, most terrorists will continue to be charged with offences under the ordinary criminal law. That is the essence of what we are talking about. The definition is in the Bill to trigger the availability, primarily to the police, of certain additional powers and specific offences that we believe are needed to disrupt and investigate terrorism in all its aspects. Although I acknowledge that it would be wrong to make these additional powers available too widely—that is one reason for raising the threshold to "serious violence" and tightening the definition that appears in previous prevention of terrorism Acts—it would be a massive mistake if we constructed a definition of terrorism that was too narrow and constrained the law enforcement agencies in their critical responsibility to fight terrorism.

Mr. Baker: We heard earlier a litany of examples of what could be caught by the definition, from the Trafalgar square poll tax riots to pulling up GM crops. Is it the Minister's view that those activities would be caught by the definition and, if so, is it a price worth paying?

Mr. Clarke: No, it is not my view, but I will be dealing at some length with the points that have been made in this discussion, and I will deal with that point then.
We have consulted the police closely, and discussed the various acts with them. We believe that this definition will assist the law enforcement agencies. Should we go for a definition broad enough to catch the range of activities that we believe terrorists may undertake but that could potentially catch other activities? Or should we go for a narrow definition that limits the chances of catching actions some believe to be non-terrorist but which, by definition, involve serious violence or the like, but would fail to catch all the terrorist activity of which we are aware? That is the balance that the House must judge and that we have been trying to judge in the three months and a day since Second Reading.
I come now to the amendments before us. Let me deal first with some of the points made by my hon. Friend the Member for Hull, North. Amendment No. 122 refers to putting the public in fear. The proposition that any seriously violent act carried out to put the public in fear should be caught by the definition of terrorism could lead to an unacceptably wide definition—even wider than the one in the Bill.
The right hon. and learned Member for Sleaford and North Hykeham (Mr. Hogg) referred to hunt saboteurs, but other examples are equally controversial. The Yorkshire Ripper certainly put the public in fear—would that be categorised as a terrorist act? I do not think that it could be described as terrorist behaviour, but it would certainly have put the public in fear and would have been caught by the proposed definition. Apart from controversial activities such as demonstrations and hunt saboteurs, very serious crimes would, quite inappropriately, be caught by that definition.
I agree that the notion of fear of terrorism is key to the concept of terrorism, but it is an over-simplification to suggest that all actions carried out to put the public in fear are acts of terrorism or could be so defined. They clearly are not. I believe that we need a different or additional filter, which is why we believe that the motivational approach which my hon. Friend does not like and seeks to remove by his amendment—that the act was carried out to advance a political, religious or ideological cause—is the right one. The motivation is what distinguishes other actions that put the public in fear from acts of terrorism.

Mr. John Cryer: Would the definition in the Bill have caught the striking miners of 15 years ago and/or the people who supported the anti-apartheid movement during the 1970s, 1980s and early 1990s?

Mr. Clarke: As I said on Second Reading and thereafter, I believe that the answer to both questions is no.

Mr. Hogg: The hon. Gentleman has just conceded that hunt saboteurs, beastly though they are, should not be treated as terrorists. Will he accept that they are carrying out an act that falls within the scope of an act that is capable of being defined as terrorism under clause 1?

Mr. Clarke: I do not accept that. That is the burden of what I will say when I come to the specific points that have been made. If I accepted the right hon. and learned Gentleman's point, I would accept some of the comments that have been made in the debate, but I do not accept it.

Mr. Simon Hughes: Will the Minister give way?

Mr. Clarke: No, I will not. I wish to make more progress.
Several hon. Members mentioned property. The Government stand by their view that violence against property can be terrorism—it is not necessarily, but it can be. The hon. Member for Aylesbury (Mr. Lidington) gave some examples. The Canary wharf bombing is the most striking example in our recent history.
What about a bomb, such as the one at Canary wharf, for which a lengthy and accurate warning is given and which destroys buildings? It does not seem logical that empty targets could be bombed and livelihoods and communities destroyed as a result, but that the police would not have at their disposal the powers and offences triggered by the definition of terrorism. The serious violence against property limb must be retained to deal with those far from fanciful examples.

Mr. Hughes: The definition of terrorism is that it has to have a motivation—it could apply to property—that,

in the Government's wording, is "political, religious or ideological". In reality, anyone could define what they do in such a context. To be honest, that definition does not take anyone any further. Someone could say, "For me, this is an ideological matter. It is subjective; it is incapable of objective analysis by the court."

Mr. Clarke: It is capable of objective analysis. The Bill establishes a massive process whereby the courts and the House will consider the definitions. We will all make our judgments, as will the courts. The Bill sets the context.

Mr. David Winnick: I have no difficulty with the international terrorism provisions and I said so in an intervention on Second Reading. The powers are essential. However, I have many reservations about the matters raised by my hon. Friends the Members for Stoke-on-Trent, Central (Mr. Fisher) and for Hornchurch (Mr. Cryer). Although the Minister dismissed the possibility, I am concerned, for example, that the miners' strike of 15 years ago and other actions—industrial or otherwise—could be included in the definition of terrorism. As someone who believes strongly in civil liberties, the right to demonstrate and the rest, I remain concerned about those aspects.

Mr. Clarke: I hear my hon. Friend's comments and I appreciate the support that he offered on Second Reading and subsequently on other matters. I will deal with them.
In Committee and today, the hon. Member for Fermanagh and South Tyrone (Mr. Maginnis) openly argued for two Bills. First, I understand his arguments but, whether we have two Bills or one, we will not avoid having the definition. In either or both of the Bills, the issue would have to be dealt with. That could be done in the same way in both Bills, or in different ways, which would cause difficulties.
Secondly, the hon. Gentleman said that some legislation was not used. In Committee, he argued forcefully for the principle of deterrence that is used in much anti-terrorism legislation—to dissuade people from becoming involved in any way with terrorist activity. The fact that aspects of legislation have not been used is not a convincing argument.
The right hon. and learned Member for Sleaford and North Hykeham and my hon. Friend the Member for Nottingham, South (Mr. Simpson) gave much the same speeches today as on Second Reading, although they were more lengthy and—to be frank—a little less coherent today. The logic of their argument is that we cannot find a definition. The right hon. and learned Gentleman clearly suggested that, although I am not sure whether my hon. Friend would say the same.
The logic of the right hon. and learned Gentleman's position would be to vote against Third Reading because we should not have the Bill. In the balance that he weighs between the need to fight international terrorism and the need to protect individual liberties, he comes to the view that we should not use more legislation—I was going to say that we should forget the fight against international terrorism, but I do not mean that quite so pejoratively. He thinks that the liberties would be so challenged that we should forget the idea of taking extra powers. I see the logic of that position. However, it is not the same position as that of those who argue that our definition is amendable.
My hon. Friend the Member for Nottingham, South gave a long list of examples and other hon. Members gave similar examples on Second Reading and at other times. I repeat what I said on those occasions: the legislation will give rise to no fears about the domestic political and industrial relations activities and so on that have been described during the debate. Part of the debate has been fanciful. A string of arguments have been pushed out that bear no relationship to the facts or to the potential of the Bill.

11 pm

Mr. Winnick: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for allowing me to intervene again. Will he give us a further explanation as to why we should not be worried about the domestic position? He said that those activities would not be covered by the Bill. Why should they not be? I apologise to the House because I was not in the Chamber for some of the earlier speeches, but I heard the powerful speech of my hon. Friend the Member for Stoke-on-Trent, Central—as did the Minister. Much concern and worry were expressed that certain activities would be defined as terrorism when in my view, and that of some of my hon. Friends, they should not be.

Mr. Clarke: None of us thinks that the activities about which my hon. Friend is concerned should be defined as terrorism—no one in the whole House believes that.

Mr. Tony Benn: rose—

Mr. Frank Cook: rose—

Mr. Clarke: I shall not give way to my right hon. Friend the Member for Chesterfield (Mr. Benn) who was not in the Chamber for the debate. I give way to my hon. Friend the Member for Stockton, North (Mr. Cook).

Mr. Cook:: I refer my hon. Friend to the example I gave earlier this evening. An individual was detained on suspicion of robbing a post office. Under the PTA provisions, he was detained without charge for an extraordinarily long period. His wife and his two sons were detained under the same provisions and subsequently released without charge. He was tried, sentenced and served his time. If that is permissible at present, what redress would people have against such abuse in the future?

Mr. Clarke: I know nothing of the detail of the case, apart from what my hon. Friend said in his earlier intervention. Based on his description, it would seem to be an abuse of current law and would thus be an abuse of future law. No doubt, my hon. Friend will take up the case in the proper way.

Mr. McDonnell: rose—

Mr. McNamara: rose—

Mr. Clarke: I give way to my hon. Friend the Member for Hull, North.

Mr. McNamara: My hon. Friend said categorically that offences such as those listed by many hon. Members would not be caught by the legislation. Why?

Mr. Clarke: As I said earlier, under the definition in clause 1, it is clear that the cause of the actions in the demonstrations that have been mentioned would not have been to endanger people's lives, nor to engage in serious violence and so on. That is why—

Several hon. Members: rose—

Mr. Clarke: I shall not continue to give way, but I give way to my hon. Friend the Member for Hayes and Harlington (Mr. McDonnell).

Mr. McDonnell: I am grateful to the Minister. I hope that, if I were to come up before a court on such matters, he would be sitting on the bench. The miners' strike has been mentioned several times. That was an ideological cause. There is no doubt that the general secretary of the miners union at that time was pursuing a socialist cause in that strike. Furthermore, the strike involved serious violence against persons and property. Indeed, some of the Members who spoke in the debate admitted to that. The strike endangered life; it created a serious risk to the health and safety of the public. With the greatest respect to my hon. Friend, it is not up to him to decide on the definitions; a judge would do so—on that basis, we should be guilty.

Mr. Clarke: My hon. Friend is right to say that, at the end of the day, it would be for a judge to decide. However, I was asked for my view as to whether the miners' strike and various other actions could be caught by the legislation. I do not believe that they would. I said that on Second Reading, and have continued to say so all through the Bill's proceedings.

Dr. Lynne Jones rose—: Dr. Lynne Jones rose—

Mr. Clarke: I shall not give way again except to the hon. Member for Southwark, North and Bermondsey because I want to make a point about the Liberal Democrat position that he may need to address.
I have tried to point out that the issue in the balance is whether we have such legislation at all. The right hon. and learned Member for Sleaford and North Hykeham has concluded that we should not.
If one takes the view that there ought to be such legislation, the consequence is that one must have a definition of terrorism. I acknowledge the difficulty in drafting that definition, as I have done throughout the proceedings, and I have invited proposals for reaching a better definition. I have explained why we are not in a position to accept any of the amendments. They would not provide a better definition that the one offered in the Bill.
When the Liberal Democrats decide whether to proceed with amendments Nos. 192 or 193—they are not consequential amendments but independent and separate amendments operating in different ways—they must consider what types of terrorist activity might not be covered if either of their amendments were to be carried. Would, for example, the Tokyo sarin attack be covered if amendment No. 192 were accepted? I suspect that it might not. There might well be other activities that would not be covered. The hon. Gentleman and his party will make a judgment on that, but there is a genuine issue of balance that has to be resolved.

Mr. Simon Hughes: The Minister knows that my position has consistently been to seek a definition that


achieved widespread support; I have never renounced the idea of a definition. On that basis, will the Minister undertake to convene, before the Bill goes to the other place, a round table of all parties, legal advisers and interested groups? Will he undertake to get and place in the Library a legal opinion on whether the questions asked in the House about the implications—

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Michael J. Martin): Order. The hon. Gentleman is not the only Member who has been guilty of making long interventions. I appeal to hon. Members to keep their interventions brief.

Mr. Clarke: I will not convene a round table meeting. I have allowed three months and a day for people to make positive propositions. I have congratulated those organisations that have genuinely worked to that end and sought to analyse their ideas. Even at this late stage, I say again that, if there are further propositions, I will be happy to consider them before the Bill goes to the other place. However, I have not yet seen alternative definitions that are better than the one offered by the Government. On that basis, I hope that the amendment will be withdrawn or defeated.

Mr. McNamara: I said at the start of the debate that I did not intend to divide the House on the amendment because I thought that there might be time for further thought. I have listened carefully to my hon. Friend's reply to the questions that were raised. I am extremely disappointed by what he has said and by his attitude. This is a difficult matter, and it has caused grave concern in the House. Because of that, and because I do not believe that my hon. Friend has advanced sufficient reason for rejecting the amendment, I intend to divide the House, if I get the support of my colleagues.

Question put, That the amendment be made:—

The House divided: Ayes 15, Noes 235.

Division No. 111]
[11.8 pm


AYES


Benn, Rt Hon Tony (Chesterfield)
Marshall, Jim (Leicester S)


Cook, Frank (Stockton N)
Marshall-Andrews, Robert


Cryer, Mrs Ann (Keighley)
Morgan, Alasdair (Galloway)


Cryer, John (Hornchurch)
Simpson, Alan (Nottingham S)


Flynn, Paul
Thomas, Simon (Ceredigion)


Hancock, Mike
Wise, Audrey


Jones, Dr Lynne (Selly Oak)
Tellers for the Ayes:


Llwyd, Elfyn
Mr. John McDonnell and


McNamara, Kevin
Mr. Jeremy Corbyn.




NOES


Ainger, Nick
Benn, Hilary (Leeds C)


Ainsworth, Robert (Cov'try NE)
Bennett, Andrew F


Allen, Graham
Benton, Joe


Anderson, Donald (Swansea E)
Bermingham, Gerald


Anderson, Janet (Rossendale)
Berry, Roger


Armstrong, Rt Hon Ms Hilary
Betts, Clive


Atkins, Charlotte
Blackman, Liz


Austin, John
Blears, Ms Hazel


Banks, Tony
Boateng, Rt Hon Paul


Barnes, Harry
Borrow, David


Beard, Nigel
Bradley, Keith (Withington)


Beckett, Rt Hon Mrs Margaret
Bradshaw, Ben


Begg, Miss Anne
Browne, Desmond





Burden, Richard
Johnson, Alan (Hull W & Hessle)


Burgon, Colin
Johnson, Miss Melanie (Welwyn Hatfield)


Butler, Mrs Christine



Campbell, Alan (Tynemouth)
Jones, Rt Hon Barry (Alyn)


Campbell-Savours, Dale
Jones, Mrs Fiona (Newark)


Cann, Jamie
Jones, Helen (Warrington N)


Caplin, Ivor
Jones, Jon Owen (Cardiff C)


Casale, Roger
Jones, Martyn (Clwyd S)


Cawsey, Ian
Keeble, Ms Sally


Chapman, Ben (Wirral S)
Keen, Alan (Feltham & Heston)


Clapham, Michael
Kemp, Fraser


Clark, Dr Lynda (Edinburgh Pentlands)
Kennedy, Jane (Wavertree)



Khabra, Piara S


Clark, Paul (Gillingham)
Kidney, David


Clarke, Charles (Norwich S)
Kilfoyle, Peter


Clelland, David
Kumar, Dr Ashok


Clwyd, Ann
Laxton, Bob


Coaker, Vernon
Lepper, David


Coffey, Ms Ann
Leslie, Christopher


Colman, Tony
Levitt, Tom


Connarty, Michael
Lewis, Ivan (Bury S)


Corston, Jean
Lidington, David


Cousins, Jim
Linton, Martin


Cox, Tom
Lock, David


Cranston, Ross
Love, Andrew


Crausby, David
McAvoy, Thomas


Cummings, John
McCabe, Steve


Cunningham, Jim (Cov'try S)
McDonagh, Siobhain


Curtis-Thomas, Mrs Claire
McFall, John


Darvill, Keith
McGuire, Mrs Anne


Davey, Valerie (Bristol W)
McIsaac, Shona


Davies, Rt Hon Denzil (Llanelli)
MacKay, Rt Hon Andrew


Dawson, Hilton
Mackinlay, Andrew


Dowd, Jim
Mactaggart, Fiona


Drew, David
McWalter, Tony


Eagle, Angela (Wallasey)
Mahon, Mrs Alice


Eagle, Maria (L'pool Garston)
Mallaber, Judy


Edwards, Huw
Marsden, Gordon (Blackpool S)


Ennis, Jeff
Marsden, Paul (Shrewsbury)


Flint, Caroline
Maxton, John


Foster, Rt Hon Derek
Meacher, Rt Hon Michael


Foster, Michael J (Worcester)
Meale, Alan


Gapes, Mike
Merron, Gillian


George, Bruce (Walsall S)
Miller, Andrew


Gerrard, Neil
Moffatt, Laura


Gibson, Dr Ian
Moonie, Dr Lewis


Gilroy, Mrs Linda
Moran, Ms Margaret


Godsiff, Roger
Morgan, Ms Julie (Cardiff N)


Goggins, Paul
Morley, Elliot


Golding, Mrs Llin
Morris, Rt Hon Ms Estelle (B'ham Yardley)


Gordon, Mrs Eileen



Griffiths, Jane (Reading E)
Mountford, Kali


Griffiths, Win (Bridgend)
Murphy, Denis (Wansbeck)


Grogan, John
Murphy, Rt Hon Paul (Torfaen)


Hall, Patrick (Bedford)
Naysmith, Dr Doug


Hamilton, Fabian (Leeds NE)
O'Brien, Bill (Normanton)


Hanson, David
O'Brien, Mike (N Warks)


Heal, Mrs Sylvia
O'Hara, Eddie


Healey, John
Olner, Bill


Hepburn, Stephen
O'Neill, Martin


Heppell, John
Organ, Mrs Diana


Hill, Keith
Pearson, Ian


Hinchliffe, David
Pendry, Tom


Hodge, Ms Margaret
Pickthall, Colin


Hope, Phil
Pike, Peter L


Howarth, Alan (Newport E)
Plaskitt, James


Hoyle, Lindsay
Pollard, Kerry


Hughes, Ms Beverley (Stretford)
Pond, Chris


Hughes, Kevin (Doncaster N)
Pope, Greg


Hurst, Alan
Pound, Stephen


Hutton, John
Prentice, Ms Bridget (Lewisham E)


Iddon, Dr Brian
Prosser, Gwyn


Illsley, Eric
Purchase, Ken


Ingram, Rt Hon Adam
Quin, Rt Hon Ms Joyce


Jackson, Helen (Hillsborough)
Quinn, Lawrie


Jenkins, Brian
Rammell, Bill






Rapson, Syd
Taylor, Rt Hon Mrs Ann (Dewsbury)


Raynsford, Nick



Reed, Andrew (Loughborough)
Taylor, Ms Dari (Stockton S)


Roche, Mrs Barbara
Taylor, David (NW Leics)


Rooker, Rt Hon Jeff
Taylor, John M (Solihull)


Rooney, Terry
Thomas, Gareth R (Harrow W)


Ross, Ernie (Dundee W)
Timms, Stephen


Rowlands, Ted
Tipping, Paddy


Ruane, Chris
Todd, Mark


Russell, Ms Christine (Chester)
Touhig, Don


Ryan, Ms Joan
Trickett, Jon


Salter, Martin
Turner, Dennis (Wolverh'ton SE)


Sawford, Phil
Turner, Dr Desmond (Kemptown)


Sedgemore, Brian
Turner, Neil (Wigan)


Shaw, Jonathan
Twigg, Stephen (Enfield)


Singh, Marsha
Tynan, Bill


Smith, Rt Hon Andrew (Oxford E)
Walley, Ms Joan


Smith, Angela (Basildon)
Ward, Ms Claire


Smrth, Miss Geraldine (Morecambe & Lunesdale)
Watts, David



White, Brian


Smith, John (Glamorgan)
Williams, Rt Hon Alan (Swansea W)


Soley, Clive



Squire, Ms Rachel
Williams, Alan W (E Carmarthen)


Starkey, Dr Phyllis
Williams, Mrs Betty (Conwy)


Steinberg, Gerry
Winterton, Ms Rosie (Doncaster C)


Stewart, David (Inverness E)
Wood, Mike


Stinchcombe, Paul
Woolas, Phil


Stoate, Dr Howard
Worthington, Tony


Strang, Rt Hon Dr Gavin
Wright, Anthony D (Gt Yarmouth)


Straw, Rt Hon Jack
Wyatt, Derek


Stringer, Graham
Tellers for the Noes:


Stuart, Ms Gisela
Mr. Mike Hall and


Sutcliffe, Gerry
Mr. David Jamieson.

Question accordingly negatived.

Amendment proposed: No. 193, in page 1, line 9, leave out 'or property'.—[Mr. Simon Hughes.]

Question put, That the amendment be made:—

The House divided: Ayes 41, Noes 249.

Division No. 112]
[11.19 pm


AYES


Allan, Richard
Llwyd, Elfyn


Ashdown, Rt Hon Paddy
Maclennan, Rt Hon Robert


Baker, Norman
Michie, Mrs Ray (Argyll & Bute)


Ballard, Jackie
Moore, Michael


Beith, Rt Hon A J
Morgan, Alasdair (Galloway)


Breed, Colin
Oaten, Mark


Bruce, Malcolm (Gordon)
Öpik, Lembit


Burnett, John
Rendel, David


Burstow, Paul
Russell, Bob (Colchester)


Campbell, Rt Hon Menzies (NE Fife)
Smith, Sir Robert (W Ab'd'ns)



Stunell, Andrew


Chidgey, David
Taylor, Matthew (Truro)


Cotter, Brian
Thomas, Simon (Ceredigion)


Davey, Edward (Kingston)
Tonge, Dr Jenny


Fearn, Ronnie
Tyler, Paul


Foster, Don (Bath)
Wallace, James


George, Andrew (St Ives)
Webb, Steve


Hancock, Mike
Willis, Phil


Harris, Dr Evan
Wise, Audrey


Heath, David (Somerton & Frome)



Hogg, Rt Hon Douglas
Tellers for the Ayes:


Hughes, Simon (Southward N)
Mr. Adrian Sanders and


Livsey, Richard
Mr. Tom Brake.




NOES


Ainger, Nick
Armstrong, Rt Hon Ms Hilary


Ainsworth, Robert (Cov'try NE)
Atkins, Charlotte


Allen, Graham
Austin, John


Anderson, Donald (Swansea E)
Banks, Tony


Anderson, Janet (Rossendale)
Barnes, Harry





Beard, Nigel
Hamilton, Fabian (Leeds NE)


Beckett, Rt Hon Mrs Margaret
Hanson, David


Beggs, Roy
Heal, Mrs Sylvia


Benn, Hilary (Leeds C)
Healey, John


Bennett, Andrew F
Hepburn, Stephen


Benton, Joe
Heppell, John


Bermingham, Gerald
Hill, Keith


Berry, Roger
Hinchliffe, David


Betts, Clive
Hodge, Ms Margaret


Blackman, Liz
Hope, Phil


Blears, Ms Hazel
Howarth, Alan (Newport E)


Boateng, Rt Hon Paul
Hoyle, Lindsay


Borrow, David
Hughes, Ms Beverley (Stretford)


Bradley, Keith (Withington)
Hughes, Kevin (Doncaster N)


Bradshaw, Ben
Hurst, Alan


Browne, Desmond
Hutton, John


Burden, Richard
Iddon, Dr Brian


Burgon, Colin
Illsley, Eric


Butler, Mrs Christine
Ingram, Rt Hon Adam


Campbell, Alan (Tynemouth)
Jackson, Helen (Hillsborough)


Campbell-Savours, Dale
Jenkins, Brian


Cann, Jamie
Johnson, Alan (Hull W & Hessle)


Caplin, Ivor
Johnson, Miss Melanie (Welwyn Hatfield)


Casale, Roger



Cawsey, Ian
Jones, Rt Hon Barry (Alyn)


Chapman, Ben (Wirral S)
Jones, Mrs Fiona (Newark)


Clapham, Michael
Jones, Helen (Warrington N)


Clark, Dr Lynda (Edinburgh Pentlands)
Jones, Jon Owen (Cardiff C)



Jones, Martyn (Clwyd S)


Clark, Paul (Gillingham)
Keeble, Ms Sally


Clarke, Charles (Norwich S)
Keen, Alan (Feltham & Heston)


Clelland, David
Kemp, Fraser


Clifton-Brown, Geoffrey
Kennedy, Jane (Wavertree)


Coaker, Vernon
Khabra, Piara S


Coffey, Ms Ann
Kidney, David


Cohen, Harry
Kilfoyle, Peter


Colman, Tony
Kumar, Dr Ashok


Connarty, Michael
Laxton, Bob


Corston, Jean
Lepper, David


Cousins, Jim
Leslie, Christopher


Cox, Tom
Levitt, Tom


Cranston, Ross
Lewis, Ivan (Bury S)


Crausby, David
Lewis, Dr Julian (New Forest E)


Cummings, John
Lidington, David


Cunningham, Jim (Cov'try S)
Linton, Martin


Curtis-Thomas, Mrs Claire
Lock, David


Darvill, Keith
Love, Andrew


Davey, Valerie (Bristol W)
Luff, Peter


Davies, Rt Hon Denzil (Llanelli)
McAvoy, Thomas


Dawson, Hilton
McCabe, Steve


Donaldson, Jeffrey
McDonagh, Siobhain


Drew, David
McFall, John


Eagle, Angela (Wallasey)
McGuire, Mrs Anne


Eagle, Maria (L'pool Garston)
McIsaac, Shona


Edwards, Huw
MacKay, Rt Hon Andrew


Ennis, Jeff
Mackinlay, Andrew


Flint, Caroline
Mactaggart, Fiona


Flynn, Paul
McWalter, Tony


Forsythe, Clifford
Maginnis, Ken


Foster, Rt Hon Derek
Mahon, Mrs Alice


Foster, Michael J (Worcester)
Mallaber, Judy


Gapes, Mike
Marsden, Gordon (Blackpool S)


George, Bruce (Walsall S)
Marsden, Paul (Shrewsbury)


Gerrard, Neil
Maxton, John


Gibson, Dr Ian
Meacher, Rt Hon Michael


Gilroy, Mrs Linda
Meale, Alan


Godman, Dr Norman A
Merron, Gillian


Godsiff, Roger
Miller, Andrew


Goggins, Paul
Moffatt, Laura


Golding, Mrs Llin
Moonie, Dr Lewis


Gordon, Mrs Eileen
Moran, Ms Margaret


Griffiths, Jane (Reading E)
Morgan, Ms Julie (Cardiff N)


Griffiths, Win (Bridgend)
Morley, Elliot


Grogan, John
Morris, Rt Hon Ms Estelle (B'ham Yardley)


Hall, Mike (Weaver Vale)



Hall, Patrick (Bedford)
Mountford, Kali






Murphy, Denis (Wansbeck)
Soley, Clive


Murphy, Rt Hon Paul (Torfaen)
Squire, Ms Rachel


Naysmith, Dr Doug
Starkey, Dr Phyllis


O'Brien, Bill (Normanton)
Steinberg, Gerry


O'Brien, Mike (N Warks)
Stewart, David (Inverness E)


O'Hara, Eddie
Stinchcombe, Paul


Olner, Bill
Stoate, Dr Howard


O'Neill, Martin
Strang, Rt Hon Dr Gavin


Organ, Mrs Diana
Straw, Rt Hon Jack


Pearson, Ian
Stringer, Graham


Pendry, Tom
Stuart, Ms Gisela


Pickthall, Colin
Sutcliffe, Gerry


Pike, Peter L
Taylor, Rt Hon Mrs Ann (Dewsbury)


Plaskitt, James



Pollard, Kerry
Taylor, Ms Dari (Stockton S)


Pond, Chris
Taylor, David (NW Leics)


Pope, Greg
Thomas, Gareth R (Harrow W)


Pound, Stephen
Thompson, William


Prentice, Ms Bridget (Lewisham E)
Timms, Stephen


Prosser, Gwyn
Tipping, Paddy


Purchase, Ken
Todd, Mark


Quin, Rt Hon Ms Joyce
Touhig, Don


Quinn, Lawrie
Trickett, Jon


Rammell, Bill
Turner, Dennis (Wolverh'ton SE)


Rapson, Syd
Turner, Dr Desmond (Kemptown)


Raynsford, Nick
Turner, Neil (Wigan)


Reed, Andrew (Loughborough)
Twigg, Stephen (Enfield)


Robinson, Peter (Belfast E)
Tynan, Bill


Roche, Mrs Barbara
Vis, Dr Rudi


Rooker, Rt Hon Jeff
Walley, Ms Joan


Rooney, Terry
Ward, Ms Claire


Ross, Ernie (Dundee W)
Watts, David


Ross, William (E Lond'y)
White, Brian


Rowlands, Ted
Wilkinson, John


Ruane, Chris
Williams, Rt Hon Alan (Swansea W)


Russell, Ms Christine (Chester)
Williams, Alan W (E Carmarthen)


Ryan, Ms Joan
Williams, Mrs Betty (Conwy)


Salter, Martin
Wilshire, David


Sawford, Phil
Winnick, David


Sedgemore, Brian
Winterton, Ms Rosie (Doncaster C)


Shaw, Jonathan
Woolas, Phil


Singh, Marsha
Worthington, Tony


Smith, Rt Hon Andrew (Oxford E)
Wright, Anthony D (Gt Yarmouth)


Smith, Angela (Basildon)
Wyatt, Derek


Smith, Miss Geraldine (Morecambe & Lunesdale)




Tellers for the Noes:


Smith, John (Glamorgan)
Mr. Jim Dowd and


Smyth, Rev Martin (Belfast S)
Mr. David Jamieson.

Question accordingly negatived.

Clause 3

PROSCRIPTION

Mr. Simon Hughes: I beg to move amendment No. 186, in page 2, line 19, at end insert—

'(ii) he has satisfied a judicial authority that there are reasonable grounds for believing that it is concerned in terrorism; and
(iii) that the judicial authority has issued a declaration that there are reasonable grounds for the exercise of the Secretary of State's power'.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: With this, it will be convenient to discuss the following: Amendment No. 187, in page 2, line 19, at end insert—
'(4A) In this section "judicial authority" means—

(a) in England and Wales, the Lord Chief Justice or his designated appointee

(b) in Northern Ireland, the Lord Chief Justice of Northern Ireland or his designated appointee
(c) and in Scotland, the Lord Advocate or his designated appointee.'.

Government amendments Nos. 1 to 5 and 9.

Amendment No. 162, in schedule 3, page 62, line 9, after "Chancellor", insert—

'after consulting the Chairman of the Intelligence and Security Committee'.

Amendment No. 163, in page 62, line 33, after "may", insert—

', after consulting the Chairman of the Intelligence and Security Committee,'.

Government amendments Nos. 48 to 57, 95, 115 and 119.

Mr. Hughes: One of the consequences of the definition of terrorism that we were debating on the last group of amendments is that, if an organisation is regarded as being concerned with terrorism, it can be proscribed. Under the present legislation there are 14 proscribed organisations, which are listed in a schedule to the current Bill and included in the existing emergency powers legislation. The list has remained the same for some time.
The Bill will allow proscription in relation to United Kingdom and international organisations. In Committee, the Government implied that they would expect Northern Ireland or Irish organisations to remain proscribed and did not expect in the immediate future to add any United Kingdom-based organisations, but they did not preclude the possibility of adding non-UK organisations. I hope that I have represented them correctly. A political group in the middle east, for example, could be proscribed here, and could then be within the remit of the legislation. The same could apply to a political group in Africa or one in Pakistan.
In Committee, we spent some time debating how Parliament regulates a decision to proscribe an organisation, and what then happens. The Bill allows the initiative to be taken by the Government; requires the Government to come to Parliament; and requires Parliament to approve the proscription of the organisation by a simple vote in both Houses. Then, and only then, can any organisation that thinks that it should not have been proscribed because its members are not terrorists start a process to undo the proscription.
One of the arguments that struck us as central was that there should be a process, independent of the politicians, for adjudication on whether the criteria for proscription had been met before proscription had taken place.

Mr. Hogg: The hon. Gentleman spoke of starting a process to undo the proscription. He was, of course, referring to the appeal procedure mentioned in clauses 4 and 5. As he will know, the criteria in clause 5 are the judicial review criteria. The decision to proscribe will not be reviewed on merit; rather, it will be asked whether it was an irrational decision. That is a quite different test.

Mr. Hughes: With respect, I was about to deal with the fact that the procedure thereafter is only partial—and the right hon. and learned Gentleman put very well the way in which it is only partial.
This is the process: the Secretary of State decides that an organisation ought to be proscribed; he presents an order to Parliament; there is a debate lasting an hour and


a half in both Houses, following which the Government would normally expect to whip their majority through the Lobby. Proscription then takes place immediately. Thereafter, there is a non-judicial process, starting with clause 4. Either the organisation concerned or anyone affected by the proscription, under regulations that have not yet been seen or approved, will apply to a proscribed organisations appeals commission.
We had a big debate about whether what was appropriate was a commission—another body that would do only that job in the United Kingdom and that would be specially appointed. At no stage other than on a point of law and later can there be any legal review. From the discussions in Committee, it seems that an application can take place only on the basis of a failure of process—some technical deficiency—or on the basis of the court saying that the Secretary of State and Parliament could not reasonably have come to that decision. As colleagues will know, effectively, no opportunity is allowed for a judicial overturning of the decision.

Mr. Winnick: Is there not a possibility that the amendment, although it might seem reasonable, would weaken the Government's powers to deal with some notorious organisations from abroad that are involved in terrorism and want to campaign on the most subversive grounds in this country? One or two organisations in the UK have been banned in countries in the middle east, yet operate freely here, intimidating students, in the main, from countries in the middle east, which is totally unacceptable.

Mr. Hughes: I hope that I can persuade the hon. Gentleman that, while I accept what he has said, he can support the amendment. I accept his premise. There are such organisations. They do work here. They do have an effect on students and people who are nationals of the same country as their members who are now here, and who work in a way that we would not condone. We are clear that it is our policy and position that there should be a UK-wide legislative framework and that, in theory, it should be able to deal—it does not happen yet—with international or national organisations from abroad, so I am with him.

Mr. McNamara: The hon. Gentleman rightly says that judicial review is not sufficient because it is hard to see a case being overturned by that means. But when the gays in the military case went to the European Court of Human Rights, it ruled that judicial review was not sufficient and that a case could be examined on its merits.

Mr. Hughes: That is correct, for the reason that we discussed earlier. As of 2 October, everything in the Bill will be reviewable under the European convention in domestic courts in the UK. In the case to which the hon. Gentleman alludes, the convention was used to hold that fair process had not been provided, so the hon. Gentleman is right to say that there is a qualification to the rather limited review process.
There is in the Bill a process for undoing proscription. In later clauses in the same part, there is a provision whereby the Secretary of State can come before the House to de-proscribe. That happens in a similar way.
My hon. Friends and I are asking the House to agree to a proposition that says that it should not be for the Secretary of State alone—of whatever party, in whatever

Administration—to make a decision without someone other than politicians having a view that there is evidence sufficient to get across the threshold. I take the point of the hon. Member for Walsall, North (Mr. Winnick). If he thinks about it, if Ministers wanted, on the basis of intelligence advice that they had received, to proscribe an organisation from the middle east, Northern Ireland or Ireland, they might not wish, or be in a position in the interests of security, to come to the House with the information. For understandable reasons, they might not be able to tell us all their reasons for wanting to proscribe an organisation. It has long been agreed that security matters are not discussed in the House. Answers from Prime Ministers have indicated that during every Administration since I have been a Member.
That means that the most serious decisions could be taken about organisations of which we knew little. The organisation and everyone in it could be proscribed. There would be a remote chance of overturning proscription if an application were made in this country, although the organisation might not be based here, but the Minister who sought Parliament's approval on trust on the information that he had been given would be the only authority for its proscription.
I do not mean to undermine the role of both Houses in questioning such decisions. On security matters, however, we know to our cost—although we have members of the Security and Intelligence Committee—that there are many things about which we are not told, and certainly things about which we are not told until long after the event. We seek to provide an external adjudicator who can consider the evidence to see whether a reasonable test has been passed. It would be bizarre not to do that.
The Bill, which many of us consider draconian in many respects, requires police constables seeking certain things and those who request special powers to go to court to ask for them. It would be unusual if a move as draconian as proscription did not require a Minister to go to some authority independent of the state and the Executive before the event to say that evidence supported it.
Amendment No. 186 makes a simple proposition. The Minister should satisfy a judicial authority that there are reasonable grounds for believing that an organisation is concerned in terrorism, and the judicial authority should issue a declaration that there are reasonable grounds for the exercise of the Secretary of State's power. That simple process of seeking a declaration is used every week in the courts under administrative law. A judge could hear the case in camera, and the Minister could come to the House with the authority of a declaration.

Dr. Godman: I was going to ask the hon. Gentleman what he meant by a judicial authority, but he has told us that he means a judge who would deliver a formal opinion. May I point out that the Lord Advocate, who is referred to in proposed new section 4A(c), is a Law Officer and therefore a member of the Government? The hon. Gentleman may think the point technical, but he should refer—

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. The hon. Gentleman may wish to make a speech, but his intervention is too long.

Mr. Hughes: Judicial authorities are defined for other purposes elsewhere in the Bill. Sometimes the authority


is a senior magistrate. In this sort of case, according to the advice that I took—I do not pretend that it was the highest in the land—in England and Wales and in Northern Ireland, the authority should be the Lord Chief Justice, who deals most with criminal matters. In Scotland, the position is slightly confused—I mean no criticism—by a recent ruling of the European Court of Human Rights about when judicial appointees may have political roles. I am willing to be corrected: another senior judge may be more appropriate in Scotland. I shall not press amendment No. 187 to the vote because there may be better suggestions. However, the principle is that, in each of the three jurisdictions, a senior judge should be the person who issues a declaration that there is evidence for proscription.

Dr. Godman: The Lord Advocate is not a judge but a Law Officer, and hence a member of the Government.

Mr. Hughes: I know that. Nevertheless, the advice was given that he might be the appropriate person. The point that I was trying to make was that, because of a recent ruling—which the hon. Gentleman, as a Scottish Member, will know as well as if not better than I do—in Scotland, the issue of re-defining appointments is being considered. It has been ruled that in certain cases involving sheriffs, and in other matters that are not irrelevant to the issue that we are debating, there is a conflict.

Mr. Fisher: Will the hon. Gentleman explain to the House how the scrutiny of the judicial body would be more rigorous than the scrutiny of the House? He made the valid and justifiable point that the House might not have in its possession all the material necessary to scrutinise a case, but would not that apply also to the judicial body?

Mr. Hughes: The answer to the hon. Gentleman's perfectly good question is that there is much precedent establishing the courts' ability to see in camera—effectively, in private—the Minister's evidence for proceeding with a case, although that evidence could not be provided to Parliament. Quite often, courts decide cases on the basis of papers that are given to them, and on which they form a view. I am not criticising the fact that Ministers could not give that material to Parliament. Ministers would give Parliament an assessment and some information, and offer a view on the case. However, at that stage, we would not necessarily be able either to question the assessment or to elicit necessary information.
As the hon. Member for Walsall, North said, decisions sometimes have to be made quickly. If there were information about an imminent terrorist attack in this country by a foreign organisation—or about an attack abroad by an organisation based in the United Kingdom—action would have to be taken speedily. That does not mean that there should not be some way of our stopping that action being taken, to the severe detriment of individuals and organisations.
We are trying to balance measures affecting the individual's liberty with security. Individuals could wake up one morning to discover that an organisation to which they belonged had been proscribed although they would have had no say at all in that decision, and no opportunity

to argue or resist the designation with all its consequences. We also have to consider the practical difficulties of overturning such a decision.
The question is whether we should give powers only to the state, the Government and Parliament, or allow a body that is independent of politicians to make an adjudication. I hope that the House will feel that it is appropriate to provide for judicial oversight; that such oversight adds something; and that it will provide great protection, should severe action—proscribing an organisation—be taken. The United Kingdom has never taken such action against a non-Irish organisation.

Mr. McNamara: I listened with increasing confusion to the speech of the hon. Member for Southwark, North and Bermondsey (Mr. Hughes). I have a gut feeling against any type of secret court, but he seemed to be describing precisely the type of situation—against which the European Court of Human Rights ruled in the gays in the military case—in which there is no opportunity to examine the case's merits.
The hon. Gentleman has not thought the matter through. Although he rightly criticised the procedure proposed in the Bill, he has not stated clearly whether we should follow that procedure, accept the drawbacks of judicial review or accept the Strasbourg Court's action to overcome those drawbacks. Indeed, I thought that he slightly—but unintentionally—misled the House when he said that courts issue declarations every day. They do, but they give their reasons for doing so. They do not simply state, "On the evidence that I have seen—therefore … "
Ever since the Scott inquiry, the courts have been scrupulous about issuing declarations such as public interest immunity certificates. Governments have to demonstrate whether issues are relevant to a specific decision, and whether material should be disclosed to the parties. I cannot envisage that the courts would want to find themselves subject to all sorts of criticism on the basis of their reaching decisions, when the people involved in the case know nothing about those decisions.
The hon. Member for Southwark, North and Bermondsey is looking at the purpose of proscription somewhat wrongly. I am not certain about the value of proscription, but I believe that its main purpose is to show society that to belong to or to support particular organisations is not desirable for a whole host of reasons—because they shoot people and do other nasty things seeking to subvert the state. The state must give reasons for proscription.
It is worth arguing whether proscription is a good or bad idea, but reasons must at least be given for proscribing an organisation. If no reasons were given, one would want to know why an organisation was proscribed. The list of proscribed organisations shows that, at one time or another, they were associated with actions that, under the old legislation, would have been considered to be acts of terrorism.
I object to the amendment on two grounds. First, the hon. Member for Southwark, North and Bermondsey has not thought it through and, secondly, he has completely misinterpreted the role and purpose of proscription.

Mr. Hogg: I shall be brief. This debate flows from the fact that we have a wide definition of terrorism. What is troubling the hon. Member for Southwark, North and


Bermondsey (Mr. Hughes) is that Ministers will come to the House seeking an affirmative resolution and have within their knowledge material that they cannot disclose to the House, so there will be a judicial filter. I have some sympathy with that approach, but it is probably not a judicial exercise. I do not think that the Lord Chief Justice or anyone else would want to exercise it.
The problem goes a little further, however. The power to proscribe can be exercised under clause 3 if the organisation to be proscribed is engaged in terrorist activity, but that test should not be sufficient. For reasons that we have demonstrated in previous debates, many organisations pursue activities that are capable of constituting terrorist activities, but their activities are not such that the House would think it proper, right, appropriate or in the public interest to proscribe them. Thus the real question that the House ought to consider is not a judicial filter, but whether the proscribing power should be extended so that, first, the organisation has to be committing acts of terrorism and, secondly, it is in the public interest to proscribe them. Unless the second test is written in, it will be possible to proscribe simply because an organisation is pursuing activities that fall within the definition of terrorism.
That takes us back to the miners, demonstrators and hunt saboteurs who pursue activities as defined, but nobody wants them proscribed, however beastly they may be. We should, therefore, build into clause 3 a further test that addresses the public interest.

Mr. Lidington: I shall speak to amendments Nos. 162 and 163, which stand in my name, and then comment briefly on the amendments moved by the hon. Member for Southwark, North and Bermondsey (Mr. Hughes).
Amendments Nos. 162 and 163 would require the Lord Chancellor to consult the chairman of the Intelligence and Security Committee about appointments to the proscribed organisations appeal commission and about the rules under which that commission should operate.
I do not want to labour the point, as the subject was alluded to earlier. I tabled amendments Nos. 162 and 163 because it is important to find a way in which to involve the Intelligence and Security Committee, and the Select Committee system more generally, in overseeing the work that the Bill will set in hand.
We are in the course of establishing a range of commissions, authorities and commissioners, whose duty will be to oversee Ministers' work in respect of various aspects of security and intelligence, and it is time to give serious thought to how best to involve parliamentarians in appropriate scrutiny and oversight of that work.
I am dubious about amendments Nos. 186 and 187. The decisions that the Bill requires of the Secretary of State in respect of proscription are exactly the sort of responsibility that Secretaries of State are there to carry out. If we ask a judge to look at acutely sensitive security material—perhaps details of informants—we are putting that judge in an invidious position, as it would be normal judicial practice to look at both sides of the argument and, if possible, to allow either party to make representations about the other's evidence.
Under the amendments, we would be asking the Lord Chief Justice and others to take on what is properly a role for the Executive. It is right that Parliament should hold the Secretary of State to account for such important

decisions. If Parliament does not have confidence in the persuasiveness of a Secretary of State's argument, it has the right and the responsibility to refuse the order and leave the organisation unproscribed. That is proper parliamentary accountability and the better way to proceed.

Mr. Charles Clarke: Amendment No. 1 and the other Government amendments are technical amendments concerning proscription, and I will not go into the detail of them.
On amendment No. 186, I agree with the points made by the hon. Member for Aylesbury (Mr. Lidington): the decision is for the Executive. The issues that have to be taken into account include the nature and scale of the activity, the specific threat posed to the United Kingdom and to UK citizens abroad, the extent of the organisation's presence in the UK, the need to support other members of the international community in the global fight against terrorism and the importance of deterrence.
The Home Secretary and the Executive are the right people to take those decisions, with accountability to Parliament in the way that the hon. Member for Aylesbury described. I hope that the House will reject the amendment if it is pressed to a vote, but I urge the hon. Member for Southwark, North and Bermondsey (Mr. Hughes) to withdraw it.
I understand the motive behind amendments Nos. 162 and 163. It is a perfectly reasonable proposition that we should find a better way of binding the parliamentary process into the procedures. As I wrote to Committee members following this discussion in Committee, the role of the Intelligence and Security Committee is defined in section 10 of the Intelligence Services Act 1994. It is
to examine the expenditure, administration and policy of—

(a) the Security Service;
(b) the Intelligence Service; and
(c) GCHQ.

It seems unlikely that the ISC's remit as currently established would allow for the role and responsibility that the hon. Member for Aylesbury has suggested, although I appreciate his motives and I am happy to consider other proposals that he may have for more effective integration.
I hope that the House will support the Government amendments and that the others will not be pressed to a vote.

12 midnight

Mr. Simon Hughes: I am grateful for the other contributions to this debate. Good and valid points were made by the hon. Members for Hull, North (Mr. McNamara) and for Greenock and Inverclyde (Dr. Godman), as well as by the right hon. and learned Member for Sleaford and North Hykeham (Mr. Hogg). I do not agree with the view of the hon. Member for Aylesbury (Mr. Lidington) that there may not be an appropriate forum for other people to have a say in the process. If there is a method that would command greater support in terms of the public interest test, rather than a traditional court proceeding, we could reasonably consider it. On that basis, I shall seek the leave of the House to withdraw the amendment and I shall talk to my colleagues


to see whether we can increase citizens' powers and reduce the state's power slightly. I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Clause 6

FURTHER APPEAL

Amendments made: No. 1, in page 3, line 26, leave out "leave" and insert "permission".

No. 2, in page 3, line 28, leave out "leave" and insert "permission".—[Mr. Charles Clarke.]

Clause 8

SECTION 7: SCOTLAND AND NORTHERN IRELAND

Amendments made: No. 3, in page 4, line 34, leave out from "Scotland" to end of line 8 on page 5 and insert "—

(a) for every reference to the Court of Appeal or the Crown Court substitute a reference to the High Court of Justiciary,
(b) in subsection (2)(b), at the end insert "and quash the conviction",
(c) in subsection (4)—

(i) in paragraph (a), for "28 days" substitute "two weeks", and
(ii) in paragraph (b), for "section I of the Criminal Appeal Act 1968" substitute "section 106 of the Criminal Procedure (Scotland) Act 1995",

(d) in subsection (5)—

(i) for "by a magistrates' court" substitute "in summary proceedings", and
(ii) in paragraph (b), at the end insert "and quash the conviction",

(e) in subsection (6), paragraph (c) is omitted,
(f) in subsection (7)—

(i) in paragraph (a) for "21 days" substitute "two weeks", and
(ii) for paragraph (b) substitute—


"(b) shall be by note of appeal, which shall state the ground of appeal,
(c) shall not require leave under any provision of Part X of the Criminal Procedure (Scotland) Act 1995, and
(d) shall be in accordance with such procedure as the High Court of Justiciary may, by Act of Adjoumal, determine.".'

No. 4, in page 5, line 14, after "court,", insert—
'() the reference in subsection (6) to section I I I of the Magistrates' Courts Act 1980 shall be taken as a reference to Article 146 of the Magistrates' Courts (Northern Ireland) Order 1981,'.—[Mr. Charles Clarke.]

Clause 9

HUMAN RIGHTS ACT 1998

Amendment made: No. 5, in page 5, line 29, leave out—
'(but not paragraph 5(1)(a) or (3)(e))'.—[Mr. Charles Clarke.]

Clause 29

FORFEITURE: APPEAL

Mr. Charles Clarke: I beg to move amendment No. 6, in page 14, line 22, leave out "by a magistrates' court".

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Sir Alan Haselhurst): With this it will be convenient to discuss Government amendments Nos. 7, 8 and 10 to 13.

Mr. Clarke: The purpose of this group of amendments is to ensure that the provision for England, Wales and Northern Ireland set out in amendment No. 9 will also apply to Scotland. I hope that they are uncontroversial and can be agreed by the House.

Amendment agreed to.

Amendments made: No. 7, in page 14, line 25, after "Court," insert—
'() where the order is made by the sheriff in Scotland, to the Court of Session,'.

No. 8, in page 14, line 32, after "court" insert "or the sheriff'.

No. 9, in page 14, line 42, at end insert—
'(5A) Subsection (5B) applies where a successful application for a forfeiture order relies (in whole or in part) on the fact that an organisation is proscribed, and—

(a) a deproscription appeal under section 5 is allowed in respect of the organisation,
(b) an order is made under section 3(3)(b) in respect of the organisation in accordance with an order of the Proscribed Organisations Appeal Commission under section 5(4) (and, if the order is made in reliance on section 121(4), a resolution is passed by each House of Parliament under section 121(4)(b)), and
(c) the forfeited cash was seized under section 25 on or after the date of the refusal to deproscribe against which the appeal under section 5 was brought.

(5B) Where this subsection applies an appeal under subsection (1) may be brought at any time before the end of the period of 30 days beginning with the date on which the order under section 3(3)(b) comes into force.'.

No. 10, in page 14, line 43, leave out subsection (6).—[Mr. Charles Clarke.]

Clause 30

TREATMENT OF FORFEITED CASH

Amendments made: No. 11, in page 15, line 4, leave out "or (6)".

No. 12, in page 15, line 5, leave out "or (6)".—[Mr. Charles Clarke.]

Clause 31

RULES OF COURT

Amendment made: No. 13, in page 15, line 14, leave out paragraph (c).—[Mr. Charles Clarke.]

Clause 39

TERRORIST: INTERPRETATION

Mr. Charles Clarke: I beg to move amendment No. 14, in page 18, line 16, leave out "57" and insert "62".

Mr. Deputy Speaker: With this it will be convenient to discuss Government amendments Nos. 22 to 24 and 30.

Mr. Clarke: Amendment No. 14 extends the list of offences under the Bill in respect of which a clause 40 arrest may be made. Amendments Nos. 22 and 24 ensure that the police will be able to cross from one part of the United Kingdom to another to exercise the powers under clauses 40 and 42 to arrest or search a person suspected of being a terrorist. Amendment No. 23 gives the police explicit power to seize and retain things that may constitute evidence that a person searched under the clause 42 search powers is a terrorist. Amendment No. 30, in line with section 221 of PACE, provides that things may be retained as long as necessary in all the circumstances.

Amendment agreed to.

Clause 40

ARREST WITHOUT WARRANT

Mr. Charles Clarke: I beg to move amendment No. 15, in page 18, line 37, after "detained", insert—
'In accordance with subsection (5) or (6) or'.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: With this it will be convenient to discuss the following: Government amendments Nos. 16 to 21.
Amendment No. 164, in schedule 7, page 111, line 37, leave out "a judicial authority" and insert "the Secretary of State".
Amendment No. 137, in page 111, line 44, leave out "seven" and insert "four".
Amendment No. 179, in page 111, line 44, leave out "seven" and insert "five".
Amendment No. 165, in page 112, line 1, leave out subparagraph (4).
Government amendments Nos. 77 to 81.
Amendment No. 166, in page 112, line 23, leave out "A judicial authority", and insert "The Secretary of State".
Amendment No. 167, in page 112, line 39, leave out "judicial authority", and insert "Secretary of State".
Amendment No. 168, in page 112, line 39, leave out from "application" to end of line 4 on page 113.
Government amendment No. 82.
Amendment No. 169, in page 113, line 7, leave out "judicial authority" and insert "Secretary of State".
Amendment No. 170, in page 113, line 11, leave out "A judicial authority" and insert "The Secretary of State".
Amendment No. 171, in page 113, line 26, leave out subparagraph (3).
Government amendment No. 83.
Amendment No. 172, in page 113, line 31, leave out "a judicial authority", and insert "the Secretary of State".
Government amendments Nos. 84 to 89.

Mr. Clarke: The Government amendments are minor and are intended to allow the judicial authority to adjourn proceedings and to define the point at which the application is made.

Mr. Lidington: Several of the amendments in this group were tabled by my right hon. and hon. Friends and me. I had a good go at the subject in Committee, so I shall not detain the House overlong. This is an important subject, as both sides of the Committee recognised. The Government propose to substitute for the authority of the Secretary of State the authority of a judicial authority to determine applications by the police for the extension of detention permitted under clause 40 and schedule 7.
When the Brogan case was originally judged by the European Court of Human Rights, the United Kingdom decided to derogate from the human rights convention in respect of terrorist offences to do with Northern Ireland. The reasons for that decision were important. I understand that the present Government approach the subject from a different perspective and that they have long been committed to the principle of substituting judicial authority for ministerial authority, but I still have concerns that I want to air in the House.
We have just debated the question of proscriptions and deproscriptions. The Minister and I agreed that it was properly the responsibility of a Minister and not of a judge to examine sensitive security and intelligence and to come to an informed conclusion about whether a recommendation should be made to Parliament for the proscription of a terrorist organisation. An analogy can be drawn between that and the proposals in this group of amendments.
The amendments cause us to consider what should happen when a senior police officer is in receipt of sensitive security and intelligence information about the activities or plans of a terrorist suspect. Let us assume that that officer decides that it is necessary, for the furtherance of his terrorist investigation, to apply for an extended period of detention for the individual involved. Should scrutiny of that sensitive information be the responsibility of a Minister, or should it be the responsibility of the sort of judicial authority that the Government propose to establish? Strong arguments can be made that such scrutiny should be performed by the Executive, and not by any judicial authority.
When the previous Government considered this matter, two arguments above all influenced the decision that Ministers took. The first was the general argument that the responsibility was to form a decision on the basis of sensitive information, and that that was not analogous to judicial involvement in public interest immunity hearings or in extensions of detention under PACE.
Under the PACE procedures, the defendant is told the nature of the evidence on which he has been arrested. He is also told the reasons why his continued detention is necessary. In contrast, the procedural safeguards that the Government propose for extended detention under the counter-terrorism arrangements offer fewer safeguards to suspects, because of the sensitivity of the information in question.
Secondly, the previous Government were influenced by concern for the position of the Northern Ireland judiciary. That judiciary has few members, and consists of people


who have often been the subject of terrorist threats and attacks. It also includes people who have the great responsibility of deciding serious criminal cases without benefit of a jury because of fears of witness intimidation by terrorist gangs.
In those circumstances, the previous Government thought it right that responsibility for extensions of detention should remain with the Secretary of State. I believe that, in the aftermath of the Brogan case, the Northern Ireland judiciary was very reluctant to take on that responsibility.
I ask the Minister, when he responds, to take account of the arguments that I have adduced. Is he confident that the judiciary of Northern Ireland in particular is ready and willing to take on the extra responsibilities that the Government propose to impose on them?

Mr. McNamara: Schedule 7 is interesting, dealing, as it does, with the provisions under clause 40. Paragraph 26 deals with the extension of detention for up to seven days. I welcome—because I have campaigned for it in the past—the introduction of the judicial element into the procedure when applications are made for extensions of detention. However, I am not certain about the procedures that are being followed in this case.
In the past, we were told that the fact that every case went to the Secretary of State acted as a safeguard in preventing an extension of detention. An examination of the statistics, however, suggests that in every case that went before the Secretary of State—or nearly every case—the extension was almost automatically granted. Therefore, the procedure's justification as an additional safeguard for the person being detained was not such a safeguard. That is not surprising, because one arm of the Executive was asking another arm of the Executive to carry out a certain function.
A person who is detained will now be able to make an application to the resident magistrate or to the county court to deal with his or her case. The main fault with that procedure is that the suspect, or his lawyer, or both, may be exempted from the court proceedings and therefore will not see, hear or know the grounds upon which the decision is being made. While judicial intervention is to be welcomed, deciding such cases will place an onerous duty on the Northern Ireland judiciary, particularly if cases take place in the absence of the person detained or of his or her legal representative. They will need to bear that in mind, and not follow what seemed to be the practice of previous Secretaries of State.
Under the current system, an application must be made to extend a period of detention from 48 hours up to five days, and then a further application must be made for a further two-day period, up to a maximum of seven days. Under the new procedure, however, it appears that the judicial authority will be able to order an extension for a full five days. If that is the case, the provision may fall short of the desires and wishes of the European Court of Human Rights in Strasbourg, which seemed to indicate that four days was a sufficient period in which a person could be detained without being brought before a judicial authority for a second occasion.
I believe that the period in which people can be detained under such provisions should be a maximum of four days. In providing a way in which detention can be

increased to five days, I believe that the Government may again fall foul of the European court. I shall not divide the House on these matters, but we are continuously finding, as we go through the Bill, provisions that seem contrary to the spirit and precise provisions of the European convention on human rights and of the decisions of the court.

Mr. Simon Hughes: Two points arise. Following the speech of the hon. Member for Aylesbury (Mr. Lidington) on the Conservative amendments in the group, may I say that I understand the particular Northern Ireland circumstances of the judiciary that make the argument? However, the House would find it inconsistent if, having asked for judicial oversight of applications in the previous group of amendments, I suddenly supported him in seeking to move it from the judiciary to Ministers.

Mr. Lidington: We are consistent.

Mr. Hughes: The hon. Gentleman is right. I argue that we should keep the provision. Therefore, on the first issue I support the Government's position.
However, on the second issue, I am more concerned—as is the hon. Member for Hull, North (Mr. McNamara)—about the time limits. We went around this circuit once in Committee, as members of that Committee will remember. I draw hon. Members' attention to the fact that, unusually, on this occasion the Government are going beyond what was recommended by the independent review. Lord Lloyd's review considered how much extra detention should be allowed if a warrant was obtained. The answer was four days in total. That matter was picked up in page 36 of the Government's consultation paper, paragraph 8.21 of which states:
While Lord Lloyd acknowledges that there have been occasions on which the police might have found it more difficult to bring charges had they not been able to detain the suspect for longer than 4 days, he suggests that—
of course, this is a qualification and it is a phrase that comes up regularly—
once there is a lasting peace in Northern Ireland, it ought to be possible to reduce the maximum period for which a suspect could be detained under the new legislation to a total of 4 days—ie. 2 days on the authority of the police plus 2 days with judicial authorisation before charge or release. His views may well have been influenced by the fact that the practice has been that extensions in international terrorist cases have not exceeded a total of 4 days.
Three paragraphs of Government justification follow, considering the consultation paper and arguing that the public should be asked to consider seven days. I hope that I am not misrepresenting the Government when I say that they think that, given the growing threat of international terrorism, they need the maximum possible power. This is one of those occasions on which the Government seem to be going further than they need—and further than reconunended—for no good reason other than the prospect that terrorism is growing throughout the world, so they may need more power. That is the wrong precedent to set in a Bill that we are going to lock into our future history.
If we could not come back to the Bill, we would have to legislate for the worst-case scenario in five, 10 or 20 years. There will be an annual report, but we will not necessarily have an opportunity to reconsider the


legislation, as we will do later with the motion to approve the continuance of the emergency powers legislation—if we get that far.
I caution the House, and ask the Minister to justify why we should go beyond the recommendation made by the Government's adviser by nearly doubling the period that he recommended, not on the basis of clear evidence that four days has not been adequate, but on the theoretical basis that seven days would be more advantageous to the authorities. The latter is self-evident.
We must resist Governments gaining power, in particular where they have not made a case for doing so that is based on past practice. This is one of those cases.

Mr. Charles Clarke: First, I will deal with the amendment tabled by my hon. Friend the Member for Hull, North (Mr. McNamara). We had a broadly similar argument in Committee. The purpose of the amendment is to reduce the time that a person may be kept in detention from seven to four days. It is likely that the amendment is inspired by the Northern Ireland Human Rights Commission, which, reasonably, submitted evidence on the subject. It argues that detention for more than four days and six hours, as identified in the Brogan case, might be a breach of the European convention on human rights. The Brogan case centred on the time in detention without judicial sanction. The judgment in that case is not relevant to the time that is permissible with judicial approval.
I fully recognise that Lord Lloyd recommended four days' detention in total, even with judicial involvement, but he did not recommend such a reduction in the circumstances that prevailed at the time of writing his report. He was satisfied that there were occasions when the police might have found it more difficult to bring charges if detention were limited to four days. The Government continue to believe that there may be occasions when the police need more than four days and we are introducing judicial authorisation, which is a major departure. As I said in Committee, the judicial authority will have to be satisfied as to the police need for further detention; the Bill requires him also to be satisfied that the investigation is being conducted diligently and expeditiously.
Seven-day detention will remain a rare occurrence, but the provision is needed none the less. I repeat the figures that I quoted in Committee on that matter. The figures for PTA detentions in Northern Ireland from 1 July to 30 September show that four persons were detained in the three to four-day period; two were charged and two were released. In the four to five-day period, two persons were detained; one was charged and the other released. In that quarter, no individuals were detained for more than five days.
I do not accept that seven-day detention breaches the Brogan judgment, which found that detention for four days and six hours was a breach of the convention. The judgment centred on the lack of judicial involvement in the detention process—not on the precise time. Nor do I accept that the judicial authority will grant five-day detentions as a matter of course. The Bill provides for further extension to be granted; that reflects the current position where extensions are granted incrementally.
However, I do not favour placing a statutory limit on the time that can be granted per application. That will be a matter for the judicial authority based on the evidence

before him. The ECHR demands that the authority hear both sides; the Bill delivers that. I hope that my hon. Friend will consider withdrawing his amendment.
As for the amendment tabled by the hon. Member for Aylesbury (Mr. Lidington), I agree with him that the issue is extremely important, and, as he acknowledged, we debated it in Committee. The effect of the amendment would be to remove the judicial authority from the process. We would revert to the current position in which extended detention is a matter for the Secretary of State. On Second Reading, the official Opposition suggested that that was a proper role for the Executive—even though it would require continued derogation from the convention. The point was expanded in Committee where the hon. Gentleman suggested that the role was not a proper one for the judiciary—as he has also done this evening.
There is a fundamental difference in the approaches taken by the Opposition and by the Government. It is a perfectly reasonable difference of principle of which I make no criticism. However, the amendments miss the opportunity to place decisions about the liberty of the individual in the hands of those who are best placed to make such a judgment—the judiciary. To take that opportunity would meet our ECHR obligations and, happily, from our perspective, would enable the UK's derogation from the convention to be withdrawn.
Since May 1997, an important aspect of Government policy has been that we should end the UK's derogation from the ECHR. One of the effects of our approach in this matter would be to achieve that.
I fully acknowledge that there is more than one way to approach an issue. In this case, the official Opposition elect to retain executive authority, while the Government believe that it is right to follow the judicial route. For the reasons I have given, I hope that the Opposition amendments will not be pressed to a vote.
I commend the Government amendments to the House.

Amendment agreed to.

Amendments made: No. 16, in page 18, line 38, leave out "apply" and insert "make an application".

No. 17, in page 18, line 38, leave out—
'Part III of that Schedule'
and insert—
'paragraph 26 of Schedule 7'.

No. 18, in page 18, line 41, leave out "is being made or"

No. 19, in page 18, line 41, leave out from "under" to second "a" in line 42 and insert—
'paragraph 26 or 32 of Schedule 7 in respect of.

No. 20, in page 19, line 1, leave out from "Where" to "in" and insert—
'an application under paragraph 26 or 32 of Schedule 7 is granted'.

No. 21, in page 19, line 3, at end insert—
'() The refusal of an application in respect of a person's detention under paragraph 26 or 32 of Schedule 7 shall not prevent his continued detention in accordance with this section.'.

No. 22, in page 19, line 3, at end insert—
'() A person who has the powers of a constable in one Part of the United Kingdom may exercise the power under subsection (1) in any Part of the United Kingdom.'.[Mrs. McGuire.]

Clause 42

SEARCH OF PERSONS.

Amendments made: No. 23, in page 19, line 23, at end insert—
'() A constable may seize and retain anything which he discovers in the course of a search of a person under subsection (1) or (2) and which he reasonably suspects may constitute evidence that the person is a terrorist.'.

No. 24, in page 19, line 23, at end insert—
'() A person who has the powers of a constable in one Part of the United Kingdom may exercise a power under this section in any Part of the United Kingdom.'.—[Mrs. McGuire.]

Clause 44

EXERCISE OF POWER.

Mr. Charles Clarke: I beg to move amendment No. 25, in page 20, line 18, after "seize", insert "and retain".

Mr. Deputy Speaker: With this it will be convenient to discuss Government amendments Nos. 26, 59, 94, 100 to 108, 112 to 114, 117, 118 and 121.

Mr. Clarke: The amendments provide consistency throughout the Bill regarding the seizure and retention of things. Amendment No. 59 specifies more precisely those whom a pilot of a not-for-reward flight may notify of his intention to arrive or depart at a non-designated airport. The other amendments in the group are technical and consequential, and repeals.

Amendment agreed to.

Clause 56

POSSESSION FOR TERRORIST PURPOSES.

Mr. Simon Hughes: I beg to move amendment No. 182, in page 25, leave out lines 4 to 11.
I hope the House will agree that the amendment is important. This is the only opportunity that we shall have to discuss two matters that were central to previous debates. The first is whether the Bill, as drafted, is compatible with the European convention on human rights. The second is whether it is right that there should be powers to create what is sometimes described as the reverse burden of proof—whereby people have to prove that something is not the case, rather than the prosecution having to prove that it is the case.
The amendment applies to clause 56, which creates the offence of possession for terrorist purposes. The clause says:
A person commits an offence if he possesses an article in circumstances which give rise to a reasonable suspicion that his possession is for a purpose connected with the commission, preparation or instigation of an act of terrorism.
If those circumstances give rise to a reasonable suspicion, it is a defence for the person charged with the offence to prove that his possession was not for a purpose connected with that act. He has a statutory defence if he can show that the inference is wrong.
The following subsection is particularly dangerous, and the amendment will remove it if the House agrees with us. It says:
In proceedings for an offence under this section, if it is proved that an article … was on any premises at the same time as the accused, or … was on premises of which the accused was the occupier or which he habitually used other than as a member of the public, the court may assume that the accused possessed the article, unless he proves that he did not know of its presence on the premises or that he had no control over it.
I hope that by simply reading the clause, without any argument, I begin to make the case that this is, in the words of my hon. Friend the Member for North Cornwall (Mr. Tyler), a "guilty until you prove yourself innocent" clause rather than an "innocent until you prove yourself guilty" clause. There are significant reasons from case law for believing that the provision falls foul of the convention. I have been given clear legal advice that the provision breaches the convention.

Mr. Bermingham: It is a total breach of the convention.

Mr. Hughes: The hon. Gentleman, who is a practising member of the Bar, confirms that. He may want to contribute to the debate.
I shall not reiterate all the points made in Committee, but I refer colleagues to the debate on 1 February in the seventh sitting which begins in column 244 of Hansard. The arguments about clauses 55 and 56 were subject to the same criticism, and this is only one of many examples in the Bill of a reverse provision where one has to prove that one did not know about something. Self-evidently, that is an extremely difficult thing to do.
I draw the attention of the House to the breadth of the provision. First, any article can render one guilty; it does not have to be a firearm, ammunition, Semtex or a knife. The Bill says:
A person commits an offence if he possesses an article in circumstances which give rise to a reasonable suspicion.
The second issue concerns possession. I have not yet said that being found guilty of the offence means that one would be liable to 10 years' imprisonment, so we are talking not about a minor criminal offence, but abut a serious one punishable by a significant period of imprisonment. One can be assumed to be guilty of possession simply because the article is found on the premises at the same time as one is there.
12.30 am
That need not be one's own house, caravan, land or car; it can be the house of a person with whom one is staying, of a person whom one is visiting, of a member of one's family, or of a work colleague; it can be the farm house if one is a farm worker, or a barn on the farm if one is the farm owner. The fact of an article being found on any and all of those premises is sufficient to reverse the burden of proof.
The clause does not apply to public buildings, such as pubs or shops, but it does apply to any premises of which one is an occupier, or which one habitually uses, or in which one was present at the same time as the article in question. That means that one would be guilty even if the article was on those premises when one was not there, because one was the occupier of those premises.
The legislation does not apply solely to Northern Ireland; these events could occur in London, Belfast, Birmingham or Glasgow. I am the occupier of my house, so if an article now in my house were to be found there, I could be presumed to be guilty of an offence. It will be apparent to the House that we are entering a realm of culpability extending beyond any previous provisions applicable to this country.
The third objection is the presumption of guilt and the reversal of proof. The House understands that criticism perfectly well, and the reasons for it. I am not being mischievous or partisan, I just want to put on record the fact that people who are now members of the Government argued against such provisions only a few years ago, when they were in opposition. The Attorney-General—this country's senior Law Officer—has argued against such provisions and made the case. In similar cases, involving exactly such provisions, we as a country have been found to be in breach of the convention.
There is case law, which I shall not detail as people can easily find the relevant references. One does not even have to prove a prima facie case to pass the reasonable suspicion test; extremely thin evidence may be considered sufficient to establish a subjective reasonable suspicion. A case from the highest legal authority, the Privy Council, confirms that, as do several others.
The fourth argument rests on the fact that the Bill is not applicable solely to Northern Ireland. It could apply to international organisations based abroad and to premises abroad that one occupies, such as a holiday villa or flat, or a rental property. There are all sorts of ramifications extending beyond this country.
If the Government want to persuade us that such legislation is required, the burden of proving that rests with them. That is putting it gently. If Ministers want us to agree to the provision, which is repeated throughout the Bill, they must persuade us that it is both justified and a good thing.
It is true that, in this matter, on the balance of judgment, Lord Lloyd was on the Government's side. The argument rests on how far we want anti-terrorism legislation to go. It is also true that there have only ever been two prosecutions in respect of legislation such as this. Even so, it strikes me that the more important issue is that of the clear legal advice, based on case law, that I have received. The question is whether we want to fly so flagrantly in the face of such strong authority.
The Minister has said, and I believe him, that the legal advice that he has received is that the provision is compatible with the convention. I tried to be as open as I could and asked to see it. Obviously, lawyers may disagree and there may well be two legal opinions, but at least let us examine the arguments which suggest that the provision is compatible with the European convention. That advice has not been forthcoming. I understand that even if we had the most wonderful freedom of information legislation, such advice to the Government would probably not be required to be produced.
Unless the Government can produce such independent authority against the backdrop of the case law, they are not passing the test of showing the case to the House. I shall not detain the House further. We shall press the amendment to a Division.
The Home Secretary sold the Bill to us on the basis that it would be UK-wide legislation. It will not be for part of the United Kingdom, but for all of it. It will not

be for people only in the United Kingdom, but for people beyond it. It will not be for a limited period, but indefinitely.
We cannot legislate in a way that is compatible with our legal obligations and the rights of our citizens if we put such legislation on the statute book. I hope that people will realise that the good British legal tradition that a person is innocent until proven guilty should remain, unless the Government can advance an overwhelming argument for it to be changed. They have not made that case.

Mr. Corbyn: I shall be brief, as the hour is late. I endorse what the hon. Member for Southwark, North and Bermondsey (Mr. Hughes) said in support of his amendment.
The basic principle of all law must be that a person is innocent until proven guilty. The clause appears to go in the opposite direction. It would indict someone who has been regularly on the premises where it is believed that some material that could be used for terrorist activities is held. It would also require a person to prove his lack of knowledge—in other words, to prove his innocence, rather than the prosecution proving a case against that person.
On a number of occasions, people have been arrested under the existing PTA and subsequently convicted and imprisoned, or arrested under other legislation, and have subsequently proved to be innocent. I am thinking of the case of Danny MacNamee, who spent many years in prison and was finally acquitted. He was charged with possession. It was later proved that he could not have done what he was supposed to have done with the material that he had.
Draconian legislation is proposed. I endorse the comment of the hon. Member for Southwark, North and Bermondsey that the Bill is different from other Bills. It is a permanent, not a temporary provision. Someone could be convicted on the basis that, because of regular visits to a place, it could be claimed that he had knowledge of what was going on there. In those circumstances, it would be difficult for the person to prove otherwise.
I fear that, if the Bill is enacted in its present form, we will return to the miscarriages of justice of yesteryear, which we hoped to have left behind us, with the changes in attitude and legislation following the release of the Birmingham Six, the Guildford Four and others. We may want to deal with the problems of people who place bombs that kill innocent people, but this is not the way to do it. We are being urged to convict the innocent along with the guilty. That prejudices the entire judicial process.
I ask the Minister to explain the justification for stating in the Bill that one must prove a lack of knowledge of something. It is virtually impossible to do that. The onus should be on the prosecution, rather than on the defence, to prove that. The provision goes against the principle that the burden of proof should lie with the prosecution. It states that the burden of proof must lie with the defence. That cannot be right. It is contrary to the basic principles of our law.

Mr. McNamara: I shall not detain the House long. The hon. Member for Southwark, North and Bermondsey (Mr. Hughes) and my hon. Friend the Member for Islington, North (Mr. Corbyn) have made most of the points. I shall make two observations.
When the Bill was first published, it contained the fiat from the Home Secretary that nothing in it was contrary to the human rights convention. The hon. Member for Southwark, North and Bermondsey read out the clause, so I do not intend to do that. However, I shall repeat article 6 of the European convention on human rights. Article 6.2 states:
Everyone charged with a criminal offence shall be presumed innocent until proved guilty according to the law.
It is incumbent on the Government not merely to claim that, on best advice, their actions are compatible with the convention, but to produce evidence of that. That reverses the burden of proof, and puts the onus on the Government to prove their case and their innocence.

Mr. Lidington: As I understand the report of Lord Lloyd of Berwick, the comparable provision in the emergency provisions Act led to no fewer than 24 convictions since the power was first introduced in 1991. We should therefore pause before we accept the dilution of the law that the amendment would allow.
According to my interpretation of clause 56, the prosecution has to prove that an article found during an investigation is incriminating of likely terrorist activity. That is an unqualified burden on the prosecution when the case comes to court. The reversal of the burden of proof applies only when the defendant wants to argue that, although the article was present and was found in circumstances that created a reasonable suspicion that it was connected with terrorist activity, he did not possess it and was not aware of its presence. That proposal is not as unreasonable as the hon. Members for Southwark, North and Bermondsey (Mr. Hughes) and for Islington, North (Mr. Corbyn) suggest.
I agree with Lord Lloyd of Berwick, who argued that if,
during a search of premises occupied by a suspected terrorist, the police … find materials such as timers or chemicals in highly incriminating circumstances without also finding explosives or other prohibited materials—
possession of which would count as an offence—the relevant person should
be required to account to the court for his possession of the articles.
That is reasonable. For that reason, I do not support the amendment.

Mr. Charles Clarke: The debate was rehearsed in Committee in columns 252–53. The general question of whether the clause constituted a reversal of the burden of proof has also been considered at length.
First, let me refer to the report of Lord Lloyd of Berwick. The possession offence for which clause 56 provides is useful and effective. Lord Lloyd sets it out clearly. The hon. Member for Aylesbury (Mr. Lidington) provided some details. The provision reflects the prevention of terrorism Act. We are satisfied on the basis of the Lords ruling in Kebilene that the provision is not incompatible with the European convention on human rights.

Mr. Bermingham: Does the Minister agree that the comments of the hon. Member for Aylesbury (Mr. Lidington) were sheer rubbish? If one finds timers, explosives and so on, they are per se objects of terrorism. We are arguing about whether the reverse burden is applicable. It is not applicable in view of article 6 of the European convention on human rights.

Mr. Clarke: I do not agree with the analysis of my hon. Friend. For the purpose of clarity, I shall go through clause 56. Subsection (1) states:
A person commits an offence if he possesses an article in circumstances which give rise to a reasonable suspicion that his possession is for a purpose connected with the commission, preparation or instigation of an act of terrorism.
That condition, which is not trivial, must be fulfilled.
Subsection (2) states:
It is a defence for a person charged with an offence under this section to prove that his possession of the article was not for a purpose connected with the commission, preparation or instigation of an act of terrorism.
There is therefore a statutory defence. It is not the only defence, but, statutorily, it is a defence to demonstrate that possession was not for a purpose connected with terrorism. Again, that approach runs through the Bill in a number of different aspects. It stands up absolutely and is a statutory defence that can protect innocent people.
12.45 am
Subsection (3) is specifically addressed by the amendment. Again, the point is clear: the court may assume that the accused possessed the article unless he proves that he did not know of its presence on the premises or that he had no control over it.
A series of hurdles would have to be overcome by the prosecution to get to an offence in this particular area. We are dealing with serious issues, as set out in Lord Lloyd's report. I hope that the House agrees that the amendment should be defeated if put to the vote, but I also hope that the hon. Member for Southwark, North and Bermondsey will withdraw it, as he did in Committee.

Mr. Simon Hughes: We went round the course once in Committee and then considered the components of the clause in the clause stand part debate. I expressly reserved our position at that stage, as the Minister fairly recognises, and sought to amend the clause—which I thought would be of practical value—in a significant and material way that we think would correct the balance. This is a symbolic effort because there are similar clauses, but rather than test it ad nauseam through the evening, we think it right to put our amendment to the vote. I shall not withdraw it because even if, with draconian powers, some success would be achieved, it is at least unwise to provide a balance that is so weighted and so unusual—in more than one way, there is a double balance in favour of the prosecution—when there is clear controversy and specific advice that the measure falls foul of the European convention.
In the very year in which we are introducing the convention into British law—the hon. Member for Hull, North (Mr. McNamara) referred to it—putting the Bill on the statute book permanently does not send the right signals either to Northern Ireland, where people are seeking to re-establish normal criminal justice, or to the rest of the country, where we are seeking to uphold our traditions well. We do not want the Bill to be permanent and I regret greatly the inclusion of such provisions. Of course the prosecution will be more likely to succeed if the burden of proof is reversed. That is self-evident. If there were no defence rights, there would be more convictions. That, too, is self-evident. The fewer rights there are, the more likely that the defence will have difficulties.
We cannot afford to risk the miscarriages of justice that such provisions will enable and it is important that the House, with as much support as possible, either defeats the Government and amends the clause or at least signals its clear view that the other place should reconsider the matter.

Question put, That the amendment be made:—

The House divided: Ayes 35, Noes 239.

Division No. 113]
[12.48 am


AYES


Allan, Richard
Heath, David (Somerton & Frome)


Ashdown, Rt Hon Paddy
Hughes, Simon (Southwark N)


Baker, Norman
Jones, Dr Lynne (Selly Oak)


Ballard, Jackie
McDonnell, John


Beith, Rt Hon A J
Maclennan, Rt Hon Robert


Breed, Colin
McNamara, Kevin


Bruce, Malcolm (Gordon)
Moore, Michael


Burnett, John
Morgan, Alasdair (Galloway)


Burstow, Paul
Rendel, David


Campbell, Rt Hon Menzies (NE Fife)
Russell, Bob (Colchester)



Sanders, Adrian


Chidgey, David
Stunell, Andrew


Corbyn, Jeremy
Tonge, Dr Jenny


Cotter, Brian
Tyler, Paul


Davey, Edward (Kingston)
Webb, Steve


Fearn, Ronnie
Willis, Phil


Foster, Don (Bath)



George, Andrew (St Ives)
Tellers for the Ayes:


Hancock, Mike
Mr. Tom Brake and


Harris, Dr Evan
Sir Robert Smith.




NOES


Ainger, Nick
Browne, Desmond


Ainsworth, Robert (Cov'try NE)
Burgon, Colin


Allen, Graham
Butler, Mrs Christine


Anderson, Janet (Rossendale)
Campbell, Alan (Tynemouth)


Arbuthnot, Rt Hon James
Campbell—Savours, Dale


Atkins, Charlotte
Cann, Jamie


Austin, John
Caplin, Ivor


Banks, Tony
Casale, Roger


Barnes, Harry
Cawsey, Ian


Beard, Nigel
Chapman, Ben (Wirral S)


Beckett, Rt Hon Mrs Margaret
Clapham, Michael


Benn, Hilary (Leeds C)
Clark, Dr Lynda (Edinburgh Pentlands)


Bennett, Andrew F



Benton, Joe
Clark, Paul (Gillingham)


Bermingham, Gerald
Clarke, Charles (Norwich S)


Berry, Roger
Clelland, David


Blackman, Liz
Clifton-Brown, Geoffrey


Blears, Ms Hazel
Clwyd, Ann


Boateng, Rt Hon Paul
Coaker, Vernon


Borrow, David
Coffey, Ms Ann


Bradley, Keith (Withington)
Cohen, Harry


Bradshaw, Ben
Collins, Tim





Colman, Tony
Kilfoyle, Peter


Connarty, Michael
Kumar, Dr Ashok


Cook, Frank (Stockton N)
Laing, Mrs Eleanor


Corston, Jean
Laxton, Bob


Cousins, Jim
Lepper, David


Cox, Tom
Levitt, Tom


Cranston, Ross
Lewis, Ivan (Bury S)


Crausby, David
Lewis, Dr Julian (New Forest E)


Cryer, Mrs Ann (Keighley)
Lidington, David


Cryer, John (Hornchurch)
Linton, Martin


Cummings, John
Lock, David


Cunningham, Jim (Cov'tiy S)
Love, Andrew


Curtis-Thomas, Mrs Claire
Luff, Peter


Darvill, Keith
McAvoy, Thomas


Davey, Valerie (Bristol W)
McCabe, Steve


Dawson, Hilton
McDonagh, Siobhain


Day, Stephen
McFall, John


Donaldson, Jeffrey
McGuire, Mrs Anne


Dowd, Jim
McIsaac, Shona


Eagle, Angela (Wallasey)
Mackinlay, Andrew


Eagle, Maria (L'pool Garston)
McLoughlin, Patrick


Ennis, Jeff
Mactaggart, Fiona


Fisher, Mark
McWalter, Tony


Flint, Caroline
Mahon, Mrs Alice


Flynn, Paul
Mallaber, Judy


Foster, Rt Hon Derek
Marsden, Paul (Shrewsbury)


Foster, Michael J (Worcester)
Marshall-Andrews, Robert


Gapes, Mike
Maxton, John


George, Bruce (Walsall S)
Meacher, Rt Hon Michael


Gerrard, Neil
Merron, Gillian


Gibson, Dr Ian
Miller, Andrew


Gilroy, Mrs Linda
Moffatt, Laura


Godman, Dr Norman A
Moonie, Dr Lewis


Godsiff, Roger
Moran, Ms Margaret


Goggins, Paul
Morgan, Ms Julie (Cardiff N)


Golding, Mrs Llin
Morley, Elliot


Gordon, Mrs Eileen
Mountford, Kali


Griffiths, Jane (Reading E)
Murphy, Denis (Wansbeck)


Griffiths, Win (Bridgend)
Murphy, Rt Hon Paul (Torfaen)


Grogan, John
Naysmith, Dr Doug


Hall, Mike (Weaver Vale)
O'Brien, Bill (Normanton)


Hall, Patrick (Bedford)
O'Brien, Mike (N Warks)


Hamilton, Fabian (Leeds NE)
O'Hara, Eddie


Hanson, David
Olner, Bill


Heal, Mrs Sylvia
O'Neill, Martin


Healey, John
Organ, Mrs Diana


Heathcoat-Amory, Rt Hon David
Pearson, Ian


Hepburn, Stephen
Pendry, Tom


Heppell, John
Pickthall, Colin


Hesford, Stephen
Pike, Peter L


Hinchliffe, David
Plaskitt, James


Hope, Phil
Pollard, Kerry


Howarth, Alan (Newport E)
Pope, Greg


Hoyle, Lindsay
Pound, Stephen


Hughes, Kevin (Doncaster N)
Prentice, Ms Bridget (Lewisham E)


Hurst, Alan
Prosser, Gwyn


Hutton, John
Purchase, Ken


Iddon, Dr Brian
Quin, Rt Hon Ms Joyce


Illsley, Eric
Quinn, Lawrie


Ingram, Rt Hon Adam
Rammell, Bill


Jackson, Helen (Hillsborough)
Rapson, Syd


Jamieson, David
Reed, Andrew (Loughborough)


Jenkins, Brian
Rooker, Rt Hon Jeff


Johnson, Miss Melanie (Welwyn Hatfield)
Rooney, Terry



Ross, Ernie (Dundee W)


Jones, Rt Hon Barry (Alyn)
Rowlands, Ted


Jones, Mrs Fiona (Newark)
Ruane, Chris


Jones, Helen (Warrington N)
Russell, Ms Christine (Chester)


Jones, Jon Owen (Cardiff C)
Ryan, Ms Joan


Jones, Martyn (Clwyd S)
Salter, Martin


Keeble, Ms Sally
Sawford, Phil


Keen, Alan (Feltham & Heston)
Sedgemore, Brian


Kemp, Fraser
Shaw, Jonathan


Kennedy, Jane (Wavertree)
Simpson, Alan (Nottingham S)


Khabra, Piara S
Singh, Marsha


Kidney, David
Smith, Rt Hon Andrew (Oxford E)






Smith, Angela (Basildon)
Stringer, Graham


Smith, Miss Geraldine (Morecambe & Lunesdale)
Stuart, Ms Gisela



Taylor, Rt Hon Mrs Ann (Dewsbury)


Smith, Llew (Blaenau Gwent)



Soley, Clive
Taylor, Ms Dari (Stockton S)



Taylor, David (NW Leics)


Squire, Ms Rachel
Thomas, Gareth R (Harrow W)


Starkey, Dr Phyllis
Timms, Stephen


Steinberg, Gerry
Tipping, Paddy


Stewart, David (Inverness E)
Todd, Mark


Stinchcombe, Paul
Touhig, Don



Trickett, Jon


Stoate, Dr Howard
Turner, Dennis (Wolverh'ton SE)


Strang, Rt Hon Dr Gavin
Turner, Dr Desmond (Kemptown)


Straw, Rt Hon Jack
Turner, Neil (Wigan)





Twigg, Stephen (Enfield)
Winterton, Ms Rosie Doncaster C)


Tynan, Bill



Vis, Dr Rudi
Wise, Audrey


Walley, Ms Joan
Wood, Mike


Ward, Ms Claire
Woolas, Phil


Watts, David



White, Brian
Worthington, Tony


Widdecombe, Rt Hon Miss Ann
Wright, Anthony D (Gt Yarmouth)


Williams, Rt Hon Alan (Swansea W)
Wyatt, Derek


Williams, Alan W (E Carmarthen)
Tellers for the Noes:


Williams, Mrs Betty (Conwy)
Mr. Gerry Sutcliffe and


Winnick, David
Mr. Clive Betts.

Question accordingly negatived.

Clause 81

ARREST AND SEIZURE: CONSTABLES

Amendment made: No. 26, in page 39, line 28, after "seize", insert "and retain".—[Mr. Jamieson.]

Clause 100

CODES OF PRACTICE: SUPPLEMENTARY

Mr. Charles Clarke: I beg to move amendment No. 27, in page 48, line 9, leave out "(with appropriate modification s)".

Mr. Deputy Speaker: With this it will be convenient to discuss Government amendments Nos. 28, 91 to 93, 110, 111 and 120.

Mr. Clarke: Amendments Nos. 27, 28 and 91 to 93 tidy up the position on how to deal with modifying codes of practice. Amendments Nos. 110, 111 and 120 remove the bar in the Police and Criminal Evidence (Northern Ireland) Order 1988 on applying the PACE codes to the detention of terrorist suspects in Northern Ireland. [Interruption.]

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. Could we have some order in the House?

Amendment agreed to.

1 am

Amendment made: No. 28, in page 48, line 10, leave out—
'the first issue of a'
and insert "an original".—[Mrs. McGuire.]

Clause 111

EXPIRY AND REVIVAL

Mr. Ingram: I beg to move amendment No. 29, in page 52, line 15, leave out subsection (5) and insert—
'(5) The following provisions shall be treated for the purposes of this section as forming part of this Part of this Act—

(a) paragraphs 35 and 36 of Schedule 4, and
(b) paragraphs I8A to 18C of Schedule 5.'.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: With this it will be convenient to discuss Government amendments Nos. 31 to 34, 41, 42 and 58.

Mr. Ingram: The amendments are intended to carry forward for Northern Ireland the provisions that appear in paragraph 8 of schedule 7 to the Prevention of Terrorism Act. I commend them to the House.

Amendment agreed to.

Clause 113

POLICE POWERS

Amendment made: No. 30, in page 53, line 16, at end insert—
'() Where anything is seized by a constable under a power conferred by virtue of this Act, it may (unless the contrary intention appears) be retained for so long as is necessary in all the circumstances.'.—[Mrs. McGuire.]

Clause 118

EVIDENCE

Amendments made: No. 31, in page 54, line 17, after "given", insert "or order made".

No. 32, in page 54, line 21, after "given", insert "or made".

No. 33, in page 54, line 24, after "given", insert "or order made".

No. 34, in page 54, line 27, at end insert—
'() In subsections (I) and (2) a reference to an order does not include a reference to an order made by statutory instrument.'.—[Mrs. McGuire.]

Clause 121

ORDERS AND REGULATIONS

Amendment proposed: No. 35, in page 56, line 20, leave out "and".—[Mr. Ingram.]

Mr. Deputy Speaker: With this it will be convenient to discuss the following: Government amendment No. 36.

Amendment No. 148, in page 56, leave out line 25.

Amendment No. 150, in page 6, leave out line 27

Amendment No. 154, in page 56, leave out line 28.

Amendment No. 152, in page 56, leave out line 29.

Amendment No. 156, in page 56, line 30, leave out "or (3)".

Amendment No. 158, in page 56, leave out line 31.

Amendment No. 160, in page 56, leave out line 36.

Amendment No. 149, in page 56, line 40, at end insert "() section 4(3)".

Amendment No. 151, in page 56, line 42, at end insert "() section 71".

Amendment No. 155, in page 56, line 42, at end insert "() section 78(5)".

Amendment No. 153, in page 56, line 42, at end insert "() section 79(9)".

Amendment No. 157, in page 56, line 43, at end insert "() section 96(3)".

Amendment No. 159, in page 56, line 43, at end insert "() section 99(1)(b)".

Amendment No. 161, in page 57, line 2, at end insert—
'() paragraph 16 of Schedule 7'.

Mr. Lidington: The non-Government amendments relate to whether order-making powers given to the Secretary of State should be handled in Parliament by the negative resolution procedure, as the Government propose, or whether they should more properly be


subjected to parliamentary scrutiny and approval under the affirmative resolution procedure before they come into force.
I do not wish to detain the House for long, but it is important to describe the order-making powers in respect of which I suggest that we change the proposed procedure. Amendments Nos. 148 and 149 refer to clause 4(3), which deals with procedure for applications for de-proscription. The Bill states that regulations will specify the minimum time set for determination by the Secretary of State, and therefore the time that he would have to consider evidence in support of, or against, an application. Regulations will also define the grounds on which an application could be made to the Secretary of State.
I cannot see why such regulations should have to be made urgently or at short notice. They would presumably apply generically to any application for de-proscription. It seems logical to bring them before Parliament for proper scrutiny and approval before they come into force.
Amendments Nos. 150 and 151 deal with clause 71. The regulations in clause 71 are to set time limits for preliminary proceedings on scheduled offences. Those regulations would specify matters such as the maximum time allowed for the prosecution, the maximum period during which a suspect might be held in custody, bail provisions for a suspect, and provisions for the handling of non-scheduled offences that would appear on the charge sheet with a scheduled offence in a particular case.
Those items seem to raise quite significant issues on the handling of a prosecution case and the liberty of an individual suspect. Again, I should have thought that the type of regulation governing those arrangements would more properly be dealt with using the affirmative resolution procedure.
Amendments Nos. 154, 155, 152 and 153 refer to different aspects of remission for custodial sentences. Amendments Nos. 154 and 155 deal with clause 78(5). In clause 78, remission under prison rules for Northern Ireland for scheduled offences is set at a maximum of one third of the term for a sentence of five years or more. In clause 78(5), the Secretary of State is given the power by order to substitute a different length of sentence for the five years, and a different period of remission from the one third that is mentioned in clause 78(1).
In clause 79(9), there is comparable provision for young offenders, and that issue is addressed in amendments Nos. 152 and 153. Those regulations deal with a slightly different matter—the circumstances in which a court should sentence a young offender who has been released on remission, but who then commits a scheduled offence during that remission. Specifically, they deal with the circumstances in which the court should sentence the young offender to serve the unexpired part of his original sentence, as well as the new custodial sentence that the court would have imposed on him for the scheduled offence committed while he was free on remission.
Each of those categories of regulation deal with some very important issues, such as the Government's power to vary remission arrangements for people who have been convicted of extremely serious violent and public order offences. I should have thought—especially given the degree of public concern in Northern Ireland and on this

side of the water about the Government's handling of prisoner releases in recent months—that amendments Nos. 154, 155, 152 and 153 dealt with subjects that really should merit full parliamentary scrutiny and debate, and a parliamentary decision before the Secretary of State is allowed to vary the remission arrangements as the relevant provisions currently suggest.
Amendments Nos. 156 and 157 refer to clause 96(3), which allows the Secretary of State by order to make provision, including by modifying or supplementing schedule 6, about entering or leaving Northern Ireland by land. Although this group is not as important as the previous group, on remission arrangements, I should be interested to know how the Government envisage that power being used. Why is that rule-making power in the Bill?
Amendments Nos. 158 and 159 deal with clause 99(1)(b), on an order-making power for the Secretary of State to require a silent video recording of interviews, in accordance with the Government's code of practice. Again, I am really seeking in the Minister's reply—or in writing, if he cannot reply today—some explanation of how the Government intend that power to be used. In what circumstances do they intend that those regulations might be applied?
Amendments Nos.160 and 161 relate to paragraph 16 to schedule 7, which covers the power of the Secretary of State to specify circumstances and set conditions in which a detainee should or should not be permitted to consult a solicitor or whether a solicitor can be present at a suspect's interview. In view of the concerns that have been expressed by Liberal Democrat and Labour Members this evening about the civil rights of terrorist suspects, I should have thought that there would be considerable support in the House for requiring regulations under schedule 7(16) to be subject to the affirmative resolution procedure in order to ensure fuller and more effective parliamentary scrutiny.
Although the amendments relate to the detail of the Bill, we are debating some important subjects—in particular the remission arrangements—and powers that Ministers should not be permitted to exercise without adequate parliamentary scrutiny. The amendments provide for that parliamentary scrutiny.

Mr. Ingram: As the hon. Gentleman said, the Opposition amendments seek to change the parliamentary procedure from the negative to the affirmative in respect of certain, but not all, delegated powers. I shall make three general points before dealing with the hon. Gentleman's point about remission.
First, the delegated powers in part VII, on which many of the amendments are focused, are subject to the same procedure that would apply to the current provision under the EPA. That is not to say that the parliamentary procedure for those provisions must remain the same under the Bill, but it is surely the right starting point. In respect of the new powers that the Opposition seek to amend, we had to take a view, and we think that we have got it right.
Secondly, the negative resolution procedure is a significant procedure in its own right. Hon. Members have the opportunity to scrutinise carefully and pray against orders and regulations that are subject to the negative resolution procedure. Clearly if there were concerns about


what was happening, the hon. Gentleman would have the opportunity to raise specific points, including those that he made tonight about remission arrangements—and I take on board his points about remission.
That brings me to my third point. It is my judgment that the delegated powers in the Bill are subject to the appropriate scrutiny. Hon Members will no doubt be aware that before the Bill reaches the other place, the delegated powers will be subject to detailed scrutiny, and should it be felt that any of the procedures are inappropriate, we shall of course have regard to that.
We shall take account of the points that have been made this evening. If I have omitted to deal with any of the detaiis, I shall write to the hon. Gentleman setting out the precise way in which the powers will operate and hopefully set his mind at rest.
If all the issues were dealt with under the affirmative procedure, we should have to deal with a wide range of orders. We consider an enormous amount of Northern Ireland business on important issues. The amendments seek to extend that in an unlimited way. I am not sure whether my hon. Friends—or indeed Opposition Members—would welcome that.

Mr. Lidington: I am grateful to the Minister. I am sure that there is scope—but not tonight—for a full debate about statutory instruments and parliamentary scrutiny of secondary legislation. There is a serious problem about the amount and the importance of legislation that is passed via statutory instruments. The examples in the amendments illustrate that argument.
The Minister's argument about the precedent set by the Prevention of Terrorism Acts is not conclusive. It is a reasonable point for him to make, but it is equally reasonable for Parliament to review from time to time how it scrutinises legislation, and we suggested an appropriate vehicle this evening.
1.15 am
I am grateful for the assurance that the matters will be considered further, especially in the light of comments that may be made in another place, so I will not press our amendments to a vote.

Amendment agreed to.

Amendment made: No. 36, in page 56, line 21, at end insert—
', and
() may make different provision for different purposes.'.—[Mrs. McGuire.]

Mr. Charles Clarke: I beg to move amendment No. 37, in page 56, line 35, after "9", insert "(1)(b)".

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Michael J. Martin): With this it will be convenient to discuss the following: Government amendments Nos. 40 and 65.

Amendment No. 174, in schedule 7, page 106, line 41, after "audio" insert "and video".

Amendment No. 175, in page 106, line 43, leave out "constable" and insert "police officer".

Amendment No. 176, in page 106, line 44, leave out "constable" and insert "police officer".

Amendment No. 177, in page 106, line 47, after "audio" insert "and video".

Government amendments Nos. 66 and 90.

Amendment No. 180, in schedule 13, page 130, line 15, after "audio" insert "and video".

Mr. Clarke: The amendments add an enabling power subject to the affirmative resolution procedure, so that the Secretary of State may require the video recording of interviews with terrorist suspects at police stations, in accordance with the code of practice.
This is an example of the Government's broadchurch, inclusive approach in practice. The amendments take account of proposals made by the right hon. Member for Penrith and The Border (Mr. Maclean) in Committee. I agreed to consider his suggestions, and the amendments are the result. He described his irritation with lawyers when he was a Home Office Minister, and this was an example of our all working together against the lawyers' party.

Mr. Simon Hughes: I am sorry to rise to the bait, but I am going to make it even worse by telling the Minister that I agree with him, so he cannot even claim that this is the non-lawyers against the lawyers.
It was always my view that we should try generally, and not only in police stations dealing with suspected terrorists, to have both audio and video recording. When I went to Northern Ireland recently, I asked, as I have in police stations elsewhere, whether people thought that that would save time and work well, and the general view, not only in RUC headquarters in Belfast but at Bessbrook and other police stations, was that it would make life easier and make for less controversy and dispute.
The initiative is welcome. Would that more initiatives came from the more liberal wing of people in the Committee and the House, but we cannot have everything—or at least not every night.

Amendment agreed to.

Mr. Ingram: I beg to move amendment No. 38, in page 57, line 1, at end insert—
'() paragraph 1(2)(b) of Schedule 1;'.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: With this it will be convenient to discuss the following: Government amendments Nos. 43 to 47.
Amendment No. 147, in schedule 1, page 60, leave out lines 36 to 38.

Mr. Ingram: The amendments were tabled in response to the helpful debate in Committee and to the points made by the hon. Members for Aylesbury (Mr. Lidington) and for Southwark, North and Bermondsey (Mr. Hughes). I have looked again at the arrangements relating to the transitional provisions and decided to provide reassurance in the Bill that, if for any reason the bringing into force of the legislation is delayed, the transitional provisions will remain subject to annual renewal by affirmative resolution, as is the traditional way of dealing with the matter. I commend the Government amendments to the House.

Mr. Lidington: I welcome the Government amendments, which follow a constructive discussion in


Committee. The ground covered by amendment No. 147 was addressed in Committee, so I shall be brief. One of a small number of deletions from the emergency provisions legislation that the Government now propose involves the powers granted under the EPA to extend searches for munitions. The Government propose that only one extension should be allowed in respect of any particular search operation.
In Committee, the Minister said specifically that the Chief Constable of Northern Ireland was content with the two other deletions from the EPA to which I had drawn the Committee's attention, which were the provisions concerning the wearing of hoods and the arrangements for the Secretary of State to regulate the siting of explosives factories. I inferred from the way in which the Minister talked of the police being content with those changes that perhaps they were less happy with the imposition of restrictions on extensions to searches for munitions. I wish to press the Minister to say briefly whether the Government are introducing that restriction simply to meet human rights obligations, or whether they believe that the power is now superfluous to legitimate police investigatory requirements.

Mr. Ingram: We had a good and thorough debate on the matter in Committee, and it was obvious that, before a decision is taken to remove a power from the RUC, full consultation must take place to ensure that the Chief Constable and his force are happy and satisfied with that course of action. We keep the legislation under constant review and, if elements of it become effectively redundant—if they have not been used, are no longer effective or, indeed, do not comply with the provisions of the European convention on human rights—we must take that into account. That is the approach that we have taken to the specific issues in the amendments. The Chief Constable was consulted and we would not have moved without his approval. The amendments will tidy up the legislation and I hope that, as in Committee, the hon. Gentleman will not press them to a Division.

Mr. Simon Hughes: The Government amendments are useful and we are grateful that the Minister accepted the constitutional point. It means that the Bill is now much clearer and there can be no doubt about the carry-over provisions.

Amendment agreed to.

Amendments made: No. 39, in page 57, line 1, at end insert—
'() paragraph 6(2) or 7(3) of Schedule [Financial information];'.

No. 40, in page 57, line 2, at end insert—
'() paragraph 9(1A) of Schedule 7;
() paragraph 9A(4) of Schedule 7;'.

No. 41, in page 57, line 25, leave out "or".

No. 42, in page 57, line 26, at end insert—
'() by virtue of paragraph 35 of Schedule 4, or
() under or by virtue of any of paragraphs 18A to 18C of Schedule 5.'—[Mrs. McGuire.]

New Schedule 1

FINANCIAL INFORMATION—ORDERS

1.—(1) Where an order has been made under this paragraph in relation to a terrorist investigation, a constable named in the order may require a financial institution to provide customer information for the purposes of the investigation.

(2) The information shall be provided—

(a) in such manner and within such time as the constable may specify, and
(b) notwithstanding any restriction on the disclosure of information imposed by statute or otherwise.

(3) An institution which fails to comply with a requirement under this paragraph shall be guilty of an offence.

(4) It is a defence for an institution charged with an offence under sub-paragraph (3) to prove—

(a) that the information required was not in the institution's possession, or
(b) that it was not reasonably practicable for the institution to comply with the requirement.

(5) An institution guilty of an offence under this sub-paragraph (3) shall be liable to a fine not exceeding level 5 on the standard scale.

Procedure

2. An order under paragraph 1 may be made only on the application of—

(a) in England and Wales or Northern Ireland, a police officer of at least the rank of superintendent, or
(b) in Scotland, the procurator fiscal.

3. An order under paragraph I may be made only by—

(a) in England and Wales, a Circuit judge,
(b) in Scotland, the sheriff, or
(c) in Northern Ireland, a county court judge.

4.—(1) Crown Court rules may make provision about the procedure for an application under paragraph 1.

(2) The High Court of Justiciary may, by Act of Adjournal, make provision about the procedure for an application under paragraph I.

Criteria for making order

5. An order under paragraph I may be made only if the person making it is satisfied that—

(a) the order is sought for the purposes of a terrorist investigation,
(b) the tracing of terrorist property is desirable for the purposes of the investigation, and
(c) the order will enhance the effectiveness of the investigation.

Financial institution

6.—(1) In this Schedule "financial institution" means—

(a) a person who carries on a business of taking deposits for which he is authorised under the Banking Act 1987,
(b) a building society (within the meaning of the Building Societies Act 1986),
(c) a credit union (within the meaning of the Credit Unions Act 1979 or the Credit Unions (Northern Ireland) Order 1985),
(d) a person carrying on investment business within the meaning of the Financial Services Act 1986,
(e) the National Savings Bank,
(f) a person who carries out an activity for the purposes of raising money authorised to be raised under the National Loans Act 1968 under the auspices of the Director of National Savings,


(g) a European institution person carrying on a home regulated activity (within the meaning of the Second Council Directive on the coordination of laws, regulations and administrative provisions relating to the taking up and pursuit of the business of credit institutions),
(h) a person carrying out an activity specified in any of points 1 to 12 and 14 of the Annex to that Directive, and
(i) a person who carries on an insurance business in accordance with an authorisation pursuant to Article 6 or 27 of the First Council Directive on the coordination of laws, regulations and administrative provisions relating to the taking up and pursuit of the business of direct life assurance.

(2) The Secretary of State may by order provide for a class of person—

(a) to be a financial institution for the purposes of this Schedule, or
(b) to cease to be a financial institution for the purposes of this Schedule.

(3) An institution which ceases to be a financial institution for the purposes of this Schedule (whether by virtue of sub-paragraph (2)(b) or otherwise) shall continue to be treated as a financial institution for the purposes of any requirement under paragraph 1 to provide customer information which relates to a time when the institution was a financial institution.

Customer information

7.—(1) In this Schedule "customer information" means (subject to sub-paragraph (3))—

(a) information whether a business relationship exists or existed between a financial institution and a particular person ("a customer"),
(b) a customer's account number,
(c) a customer's full name,
(d) a customer's date of birth,
(e) a customer's address or former address,
(f) the date on which a business relationship between a financial institution and a customer begins or ends,
(g) any evidence of a customer's identity obtained by a financial institution in pursuance of or for the purposes of any legislation relating to money laundering, and
(h) the identity of a person sharing an account with a customer.

(2) For the purposes of this Schedule there is a business relationship between a financial institution and a person if (and only if)—

(a) there is an arrangement between them designed to facilitate the carrying out of frequent or regular transactions between them, and
(b) the total amount of payments to be made in the course of the arrangement is neither known nor capable of being ascertained when the arrangement is made.

(3) The Secretary of State may by order provide for a class of information

(a) to be customer information for the purposes of this Schedule, or
(b) to cease to be customer information for the purposes of this Schedule.

Offence by body corporate, &c.

8.—(1) This paragraph applies where an offence under paragraph 1(3) is committed by an institution and it is proved that the offence—

(a) was committed with the consent or connivance of an officer of the institution, or
(b) was attributable to neglect on the part of an officer of the institution.

(2) The officer, as well as the institution, shall be guilty of the offence.

(3) Where an individual is convicted of an offence under paragraph 1(3) by virtue of this paragraph, he shall be liable on summary conviction to—

(a) imprisonment for a term not exceeding six months,
(b) a fine not exceeding level 5 on the standard scale, or
(c) both.

(4) In the case of an institution which is a body corporate, in this paragraph "officer" includes—

(a) a director, manager or secretary,
(b) a person purporting to act as a director, manager or secretary, and
(c) if the affairs of the body are managed by its members, a member.

(5) In the case of an institution which is a partnership, in this paragraph "officer" means a partner.

(6) In the case of an institution which is an unincorporated association (other than a partnership), in this paragraph "officer" means a person concerned in the management or control of the association.

Self—incrimination

9.—(1) Customer information provided by a financial institution under this Schedule shall not be admissible in evidence in criminal proceedings against the institution or any of its officers or employees.

(2) Sub-paragraph (1) shall not apply in relation to proceedings for an offence under paragraph 1(3) (including proceedings brought by virtue of paragraph 8)).'.—[Mrs. McGuire.]

Brought up, read the First and Second time, and added to the Bill.

Schedule 1

NORTHERN IRELAND (EMERGENCY PROVISIONS) ACT 1996

Amendments made: No. 43, in page 60, leave out lines 8 to 17 and insert—

'(2) Subject to the provisions of this paragraph and paragraph 2—

(a) the provisions to which this paragraph applies shall continue in force for the period of 12 months starting with the day on which this Act is passed, and
(b) the Secretary of State may by order provide for all or any of those provisions to continue in force for the period of 12 months immediately following the period mentioned
in paragraph (a).

(3) Sub-paragraph (2) shall have effect notwithstanding—

(a) the expiry of a period specified in an order under section 62(3)(a) or (c) of the 1996 Act (temporary extension) where the order was made before the passing of this Act, and
(b) section 62(10) of the 1996 Act (automatic repeal on 24th August 2000).

(4) The Secretary of State may by order provide for any of the provisions to which this paragraph applies—

(a) to cease to have effect on a specified day;
(b) to cease to be one of the temporary provisions for the purposes of section 62 of the 1996 Act on a specified day;

and different days may be specified for different purposes.'.

No. 44, in page 60, line 20, leave out 'paragraph 1(2)(a)' and insert—
'virtue of paragraph 1(2)(a) or (b)'.

No. 45, in page 60, line 20, leave out—
'by virtue of paragraph 1(2)(b)'


and insert—
'on the expiry of a period mentioned in paragraph 1(2) or ceases to be a temporary provision by virtue of paragraph 1(4)(b)'.

No. 46, in page 60, line 23, at end insert—
'the following provisions of the 1996 Act—
() section 26(1)(b) (power of entry on authority of Secretary of State),'.

No. 47, in page 60, line 24, leave out 'of the 1996 Act'.—[Mrs. McGuire.]

Schedule 3

THE PROSCRIBED ORGANISATIONS APPEAL COMMISSION

Amendments made: No. 48, in page 62, line 42, at end insert—
(In making the rules the Lord Chancellor shall, in particular, have regard to the need to secure—

(a) that decisions which are the subject of appeals are properly reviewed, and
(b) that information is not disclosed contrary to the public interest.'.

No. 49, in page 62, line 47, at end insert—
'and from any person representing it or him'.

No. 50, in page 63, line 1, leave out 'legal'.

No. 51, in page 63, line 7, leave out 'leave' and insert 'permission'.

No. 52, in page 63, line 22, at end insert—
() In paragraphs 5 and 8 of this Schedule a reference to an organisation includes a reference to a person designated under this paragraph.'.

No. 53, in page 63, line 40, at end insert—
() In paragraphs 5 and 8 of this Schedule a reference to a representative does not include a reference to a person appointed under this paragraph.'.

No. 54, in page 63, leave out lines 47 and 48.

No. 55, in page 63, line 49, at end insert—
'or
() any person representing the organisation concerned or the applicant.'.—[Mrs. McGuire.]

Schedule 4

FORFEITURE ORDERS

Amendments made: No. 56, in page 73, line 30, at end insert—
'.—(1) This paragraph applies where—

(a) a forfeiture order or a restraint order is made in or in relation to proceedings for an offence under any of sections 15 to 18, and
(b) the proceedings result in a conviction which is subsequently quashed on an appeal under section 7(2) or (5) as applied by section 8(1).

(2) A person who had an interest in any property which was subject to the order may apply to the Court of Session for compensation.

(3) The Court of Session may order compensation to be paid to the applicant if satisfied—

(a) that the applicant has suffered loss in consequence of anything done in relation to the property by or in pursuance of the forfeiture order or restraint order, and

(b) that, having regard to all the circumstances, it is appropriate to order compensation to be paid.

(4) Compensation payable under this paragraph shall be paid by the Secretary of State.'.

No. 57, in page 79, line 48, at end insert—
'.—(1) This paragraph applies where—

(a) a forfeiture order or a restraint order is made in or in relation to proceedings for an offence under any of sections 15 to 18, and
(b) the proceedings result in a conviction which is subsequently quashed on an appeal under section 7(2) or (5), as applied by section 8(2).

(2) A person who had an interest in any property which was subject to the order may apply to the High Court for compensation.

(3) The High Court may order compensation to be paid to the applicant if satisfied—

(a) that the applicant has suffered loss in consequence of anything done in relation to the property by or in pursuance of the forfeiture order or restraint order, and
(b) that, having regard to all the circumstances, it is appropriate to order compensation to be paid.

(4) Compensation payable under this paragraph shall be paid by the Secretary of State.'.—[Mrs. McGuire.]

Schedule 5

TERRORIST INVESTIGATIONS

Amendment made: No. 58, in page 94, line 20, at end insert—

'18A.—(1) The Secretary of State may by a written order which relates to specified premises give to any constable in Northern Ireland—

(a) the authority which may be given by a search warrant under paragraph 1;
(b) the authority which may be given by a search warrant under paragraph 11.

(2) An order shall not be made under this paragraph unless—

(a) it appears to the Secretary of State that the information which it would be necessary to provide to the court in support of an application for a warrant would, if disclosed, be likely to place any person in danger or prejudice the capability of members of the Royal Ulster Constabulary to investigate an offence under any of sections 15 to 18 or under section 55, and
(b) the order is made for the purposes of an investigation of the commission, preparation or instigation of an offence under any of sections 15 to 18 or under section 55.

(3) The Secretary of State may make an order under sub-paragraph (1)(a) in relation to particular premises only if satisfied—

(a) that there are reasonable grounds for believing that there is material on the premises which is likely to be of substantial value, whether by itself or together with other material, to the investigation mentioned in sub-paragraph (2)(b), and which does not consist of or include excepted material, and
(b) that the authority of an order is likely to be necessary in the circumstances of the case.

(4) The Secretary of State may make an order under sub-paragraph (1)(b) in relation to particular premises if satisfied that an order made under paragraph 5 in relation to material on the premises has not been complied with.

(5) The Secretary of State may also make an order under sub-paragraph (1)(b) in relation to particular premises if satisfied that there are reasonable grounds for believing that—

(a) there is material on the premises which consists of or includes excluded material or special procedure material but does not include items subject to legal privilege,


(b) the material is likely to be of substantial value, whether by itself or together with other material, to the investigation mentioned in sub-paragraph (2)(b), and
(c) an order under paragraph 5 would not be appropriate in relation to the material for the reason mentioned in paragraph 12(4)(a) or (b) or because the investigation mentioned in sub-paragraph (2)(b) might be seriously prejudiced unless a constable can secure immediate access to the material.

(6) An order under sub-paragraph (1)(b) may not be made except in the circumstances specified in sub-paragraphs (4) and (5).

(7) A person commits an offence if he wilfully obstructs a search under this paragraph.

(8) A person guilty of an offence under sub-paragraph (7) shall be liable on summary conviction to—

(a) imprisonment for a term not exceeding three months,
(b) a fine not exceeding level 4 on the standard scale, or
(c) both.

18B.—(1) The Secretary of State may exercise the power to make an order under paragraph 5 in relation to any person in Northern Ireland who is specified in the order.

(2) An order shall not be made by virtue of this paragraph unless it appears to the Secretary of State that the information which it would be necessary to provide to a county court judge in support of an application for an order under paragraph 5 would, if disclosed—

(a) be likely to place any person in danger, or
(b) be likely to prejudice the capability of members of the Royal Ulster Constabulary to investigate an offence under any of sections 15 to 18 or under section 55.

(3) Paragraphs 5 to 9 shall apply to the making of an order under paragraph 5 by virtue of this paragraph with the following modifications—

(a) references to a county court judge shall be taken as references to the Secretary of State,
(b) the references to "a terrorist investigation" in paragraphs 5(1) and 6(2)(a) shall be taken as references to an investigation of the commission, preparation or instigation of an offence under any of sections 15 to 18 or under section 55, and
(c) the references to "a terrorist investigation" in paragraphs 6(2)(b) and 6(3)(a) shall be taken as references to the investigation mentioned in paragraph 6(2)(a).

(4) Paragraph 10 shall not apply in relation to an order made under paragraph 5 by virtue of this paragraph.

(5) The Secretary of State may vary or revoke an order made by virtue of this paragraph.

(6) A person commits an offence if he contravenes an order made by virtue of this paragraph.

(7) A person guilty of an offence under sub-paragraph (6) shall be liable—

(a) on conviction on indictment, to imprisonment for a term not exceeding two years, to a fine or to both, or
(b) on summary conviction, to imprisonment for a term not exceeding six months, to a fine not exceeding the statutory maximum or to both.

18C.—(1) The Secretary of State may by a written order require any person in Northern Ireland who is specified in the order to provide an explanation of any material—

(a) seized in pursuance of an order under paragraph 18A, or
(b) produced or made available to a constable in pursuance of an order made by virtue of paragraph 18B.

(2) The provisions of paragraphs 13(2) to (4) and 14 shall apply to an order under this paragraph as they apply to an order under paragraph 13.

(3) The provisions of paragraph 16(3) to (5) shall apply to an order under this paragraph as they apply to a notice under paragraph 16.'.—[Mrs. McGuire.]

Schedule 6

PORT AND BORDER CONTROLS

Amendment made: No. 59, in page 100, line 43, leave out 'an examining officer' and insert—

'a constable for the police area in which the port is situated (or, where the port is in Northern Ireland, to a member of the Royal Ulster Constabulary).'.—[Mrs. McGuire.]

Schedule 7

DETENTION

Amendments made: No. 60, in page 104, line 14, at end insert—
() In this Schedule a reference to a police station includes a reference to any place where the Secretary of State has directed under sub-paragraph (1) that a person is to be detained under section 40.'.

No. 61, in page 104, line 17, at end insert—
(his examination under that Schedule,'.

No. 62, in page 104, line 20, at end insert—
'() A constable who arrests a person under section 40 shall take him as soon as is reasonably practicable to the police station which the constable considers the most appropriate.'.

No. 63, in page 104, line 21, at end insert—
'() Where a person is arrested in one Part of the United Kingdom and all or part of his detention takes place in another Part, the provisions of this Schedule which apply to detention in a particular Part of the United Kingdom apply in relation to him while he is detained in that Part.'.

No. 64, in page 104, line 33, at end insert—

'Rights: England, Wales and Northern Ireland

2A.—(l) Subject to paragraph 2C, a person detained under Schedule 6 or section 40 at a police station in England, Wales or Northern Ireland shall be entitled, if he so requests, to have one named person informed as soon as is reasonably practicable that he is being detained there.

(2) The person named must be—

(a) a friend of the detained person,
(b) a relative, or
(c) a person who is known to the detained person or who is likely to take an interest in his welfare.

(3) Where a detained person is transferred from one police station to another, he shall be entitled to exercise the right under this paragraph in respect of the police station to which he is transferred.

2B.—(1) Subject to paragraphs 2C and 2D, a person detained under Schedule 6 or section 40 at a police station in England, Wales or Northern Ireland shall be entitled, if he so requests, to consult a solicitor as soon as is reasonably practicable, privately and at any time.

(2) Where a request is made under sub-paragraph (I), the request and the time at which it was made shall be recorded.

2C.—(1) Subject to sub-paragraph (2), an officer of at least the rank of superintendent may authorise a delay—

(a) in informing the person named by a detained person under paragraph 2A;
(b) in permitting a detained person to consult a solicitor under paragraph 2B.

(2) But where a person is detained under section 40 he must be permitted to exercise his rights under paragraphs 2A and 2B before the end of the period mentioned in subsection (3) of that section.

(3) An officer may give an authorisation under sub-paragraph (1) only if he has reasonable grounds for believing—



(a) in the case of an authorisation under sub-paragraph (1)(a), that informing the named person of the detained person's detention will have any of the consequences specified in sub-paragraph (4), or
(b) in the case of an authorisation under sub-paragraph (1)(b), that the exercise of the right under paragraph 2B at the time when the detained person desires to exercise it will have any of the consequences specified in subparagraph (4).

(4) Those consequences are—

(a) interference with or harm to evidence of a serious arrestable offence,
(b) interference with or physical injury to any person,
(c) the alerting of persons who are suspected of having committed a serious arrestable offence but who have not been arrested for it,
(d) the hindering of the recovery of property obtained as a result of a serious arrestable offence,
(e) interference with the gathering of information about the commission, preparation or instigation of acts of terrorism,
(f) the alerting of a person and thereby making it more difficult to prevent an act of terrorism, and
(g) the alerting of a person and thereby making it more difficult to secure a person's apprehension, prosecution or conviction in connection with the commission, preparation or instigation of an act of terrorism.

(5) If an authorisation under sub-paragraph (1) is given orally, the person giving it shall confirm it in writing as soon as is reasonably practicable.

(6) Where an authorisation under sub-paragraph (1) is given—

(a) the detained person shall be told the reason for the delay as soon as is reasonably practicable, and
(b) the reason shall be recorded as soon as is reasonably practicable.

(7) Where the reason for authorising delay ceases to subsist there may be no further delay in permitting the exercise of the right in the absence of a further authorisation under sub-paragraph (1).

(8) In this paragraph "serious arrestable offence" has the meaning given by section 116 of the Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1984 (in relation to England and Wales) and by Article 87 of the Police and Criminal Evidence (Northern Ireland) Order 1989 (in relation to Northern Ireland); but it also includes—

(a) an offence under any of the provisions mentioned in section 39(1)(a) of this Act, and
(b) an attempt or conspiracy to commit an offence under any of the provisions mentioned in section 39(1)(a).

2D.—(1) A direction under this paragraph may provide that a detained person who wishes to exercise the right under paragraph 2B may consult a solicitor only in the sight and hearing of a qualified officer.

(2) A direction under this paragraph may be given—

(a) where the person is detained at a police station in England or Wales, by an officer of at least the rank of Commander or Assistant Chief Constable, or
(b) where the person is detained at a police station in Northern Ireland, by an officer of at least the rank of Assistant Chief Constable.

(3) A direction under this paragraph may be given only if the officer giving it has reasonable grounds for believing that, unless the direction is given, the exercise of the right by the detained person will have any of the consequences specified in paragraph 2C(4).

(4) In this paragraph "a qualified officer" means a police officer who—

(a) is of at least the rank of inspector,
(b) is of the uniformed branch of the force of which the officer giving the direction is a member, and

(c) in the opinion of the officer giving the direction, has no connection with the detained person's case.

(5) A direction under this paragraph shall cease to have effect once the reason for giving it ceases to subsist.'.

No. 65, in page 106, line 41, leave out from 'shall' to the end of line 48 and insert '—

(a) issue a code of practice about the audio recording of interviews to which this paragraph applies, and
(b) make an order requiring the audio recording of interviews to which this paragraph applies in accordance with any relevant code of practice under paragraph (a).

(1A) The Secretary of State may make an order requiring the video recording of—

(a) interviews to which this paragraph applies;
(b) interviews to which this paragraph applies which take place in a particular Part of the United Kingdom.

(1B) An order under sub-paragraph (IA) shall specify whether the video recording which it requires is to be silent or with sound.

(IC) Where an order is made under sub-paragraph (1A)—

(a) the Secretary of State shall issue a code of practice about the video recording of interviews to which the order applies, and
(b) the order shall require the interviews to be video recorded in accordance with any relevant code of practice under paragraph (a).

(ID) This paragraph applies to—

(a) any interview by a constable of a person detained under section 40, and
(b) any interview by a constable of a person detained under Schedule 6, if the interview takes place in a police station.

(1E) A code of practice under this paragraph—

(a) may make provision in relation to a particular Part of the United Kingdom;
(b) may make different provision for different Parts of the United Kingdom.

9A.—(I) This paragraph applies to a code of practice under paragraph 9.

(2) Where the Secretary of State proposes to issue a code of practice he shall—

(a) publish a draft,
(b) consider any representations made to him about the draft, and
(c) if he thinks it appropriate, modify the draft in the light of any representations made to him.

(3) The Secretary of State shall lay a draft of the code before Parliament.

(4) When the Secretary of State has laid a draft code before Parliament he may bring it into operation by order.

(5) The Secretary of State may revise a code and issue the revised code; and sub-paragraphs (2) to (4) shall apply to a revised code as they apply to an original code.

(6) The failure by a constable to observe a provision of a code shall not of itself make him liable to criminal or civil proceedings.

(7) A code—

(a) shall be admissible in evidence in criminal and civil proceedings, and
(b) shall be taken into account by a court or tribunal in any Case in which it appears to the court or tribunal to be relevant.'

No. 66, in page 106, transpose paragraphs 9 and 10 to after paragraph 2.

No. 67, in page 107, line 5, leave out 'arrested and'.

No. 68, in page 108, line 9, leave out '12(3)' and insert '12(4)'.

No. 69, in page 108, line 21, leave out first '(3)' and insert '(4)'.

No. 70, in page 110, line 36, leave out from 'under' to end of line 37 and insert 'paragraphs 2A and 2B'.

No. 71, in page 110, line 39, leave out 'sections' and insert 'paragraphs'.

No. 72, in page 110, line 40, after 'accordance', insert 'with'.

No. 73, in page 110, line 40, leave out 'that section' and insert 'paragraph 2C'.

No. 74, in page 110, line 43, leave out 'sections' and insert 'paragraphs'.

No. 75, in page 111, line 1, leave out—
'section 56 and 58 of the 1984 Act'

and insert—
'paragraphs 2A, 2B and 2C'.

No. 76, in page 111, leave out lines 3 to 5.

No. 77, in page 112, line 15, at end insert—
'(3) For the purposes of this Schedule, an application for a warrant is made when written or oral notice of an intention to make the application is given to a judicial authority.'.

No. 78, in page 112, line 17, leave out 'made' and insert 'heard'.

No. 79, in page 112, line 19, leave out 'an' and insert 'the'.

No. 80, in page 112, line 19, leave out 'will be made' and insert 'has been made,
() the time at which the application was made,'.

No. 81, in page 112, line 20, leave out 'made' and insert 'be heard'.

No. 82, in page 113, line 6, leave out 'making' and insert 'who has made'.

No. 83, in page 113, line 29, at end insert—

'Adjournments

.—(1) A judicial authority may adjourn the hearing of an application for a warrant only if the hearing is adjourned to a date before the expiry of the period mentioned in section 40(3).

(2) This paragraph shall not apply to an adjournment under paragraph 30(2).'.

No. 84, in page 113, line 42, after 'Paragraphs', insert '27(3) and'.

No. 85, in page 113, line 43, at end insert—
'(5) A judicial authority may adjourn the hearing of an application under sub-paragraph (1) only if the hearing is adjourned to a date before the expiry of the period specified in the warrant.
(6) Sub-paragraph (5) shall not apply to an adjournment under paragraph 30(2).'.

No. 86, in page 113, line 46, after 'detained', insert—
'in accordance with section 40(5) or (6) or'.

No. 87, in page 113, line 47, after 'that', insert 'any of'.

No. 88, in page 113, line 47, leave out 'for his detention'.

No. 89, in page 113, line 48, after 129(1)', insert—
'(a) and (b) upon which the judicial authority authorised his further detention'.—[Mrs. McGuire.]

Schedule 13

EXERCISE OF OFFICERS' POWERS

Amendments made: No. 90, in page 130, leave out lines 14 to 16.

No. 91, in page 130, line 23, leave out—
'the whole or part of.

No. 92, in page 130, line 33, leave out—
'the whole or part of.

No. 93, in page 130, line 34, after 'the', insert 'first.—[Mrs. McGuire.]

Schedule 14

CONSEQUENTIAL AMENDMENTS

Amendments made: No. 94, in page 130, line 42, at end insert—

'Suppression of Terrorism Act 1978 (c.26)

.—(1) The Suppression of Terrorism Act 1978 shall be amended as follows.

(2) For paragraph 19A of Schedule 1 (list of offences) substitute—

Financing terrorism

19A. An offence under any of sections 15 to 18 of the Terrorism Act 2000." '.

No. 95, in page 130, line 42, at end insert—

'Legal Aid, Advice and Assistance (Northern Ireland) Order 1981 (S.I. 1981/228 (N.I.8))

.—(1) In Schedule 1 to the Legal Aid. Advice and Assistance (Northern Ireland) Order 1981 (proceedings for which legal aid may be given under Part II of that Order) at the end of Part I insert—
8. Proceedings brought by an individual before the Proscribed Organisations Appeal Commission.".

(2) The amendment made by sub-paragraph (1) is without prejudice to the power to make regulations under Article 10(2) of the Legal Aid, Advice and Assistance (Northern Ireland) Order 1981 amending or revoking the provision inserted by that subparagraph.'.

No. 96, in page 131, leave out lines 12 to 18 and insert—
'() For section 56(10) and (11) (application of right to have someone informed) substitute—
(10) Nothing in this section applies to a person arrested or detained under the terrorism provisions.".'.

No. 97, in page 131, leave out lines 19 to 25 and insert—
'() For section 58(12) to (18) (application of right of access to legal advice) substitute—
(12) Nothing in this section applies to a person arrested or detained under the terrorism provisions.".'.

No. 98, in page 131, line 44, leave out '(5)'.

No. 99, in page 131, line 45, leave out from '58)' to end of line 47 and insert '—

(a) in subsection (3) for "subsections (4) and (5)" insert "subsection (4)", and
(b) subsection (5) shall cease to have effect.'.

No. 100, in page 131, line 48, leave out 'for "section' and insert—
'for "or after being arrested under section'.

No. 101, in page 131, line 50, leave out 'Schedule 5" substitute "section' and insert—
'Schedule 5 to that Act by an examining officer who is a constable" substitute "or after being arrested under section'.

No. 102, in page 132, line 4, leave out 'for "Part' and insert—
'for "or an offence under Part'.

No. 103, in page 132, line 5, leave out 'substitute "any' and insert—
'substitute "or an offence under any'.

No. 104, in page 132, line 6, leave out 'In' and insert 'For'.

No. 105, in page 132, line 6, leave out from 'property)' to end of line 8 and insert 'substitute—
(d) an order under section 23 of the Terrorism Act 2000 (forfeiture orders)," '.

No. 106, in page 132, line 8, at end insert—
'(4) In section 93E (application to Scotland of sections 93A to 93D)—

(a) in the definition of offences to which Part VI of the Act applies, for "Part III of the Prevention of Terrorism Act 1989" substitute "any of sections 15 to 18 of the Terrorism Act 2000"; and
(b) in the definition of proceeds of criminal conduct, for paragraph (b) substitute—
"(b) terrorist property within the meaning of section 14 of the Terrorism Act 2000".'.

No. 107, in page 132, line 8, at end insert—

'Elected Authorities (Northern Ireland) Act 1989 (c.3)

.—(1) The Elected Authorities (Northern Ireland) Act 1989 shall be amended as follows.

(2) In section 6(5) (breach of terms of declaration), in the definition of "proscribed organisation" for "section 30 of the Northern Ireland (Emergency Provisions) Act 1996" substitute "section 3 of the Terrorism Act 2000".

(3) In Schedule 2 (declaration against terrorism) for "Schedule 2 to the Northern Ireland (Emergency Provisions) Act 1996" substitute "Schedule 2 to the Terrorism Act 2000".'.

No. 108, in page 132, line 20, leave out 'Schedule 5" substitute' and insert—
'Schedule 5 to that Act by an examining officer who is a constable" substitute'.

No. 109, in page 132, leave out from line 39 to line 43 on page 133.

No. 110, in page 133, line 43, at end insert—
'() In Article 60 (tape-recording of interviews), omit paragraph (2).'.

No. 111, in page 134, line 4, at end insert—
() In Article 66 (codes of practice), omit paragraph (12).'.

No. 112, in page 134, line 24, at end insert—

'Proceeds of Crime (Scotland) Act 1995 (c. 43)

.—(1) The Proceeds of Crime (Scotland) Act 1995 shall be amended as follows.

(2) In subsection (2) of section I (offences to which Part (confiscation) applies), for "Part III of the 1989 Act" substitute "any of sections 15 to 18 of the Terrorism Act 2000".

(3) In subsection (1)(c) of section 42 (reciprocal enforcement of orders), for "1989 Act" substitute "Terrorism Act 2000".

(4) In subsection (1) of section 49 (interpretation), the definition of "the 1989 Act" shall cease to have effect.'.

No. 113, in page 134, line 41, at end insert—

'Criminal Procedure and Investigations Act 1996 (c.25)

.—(1) The Criminal Procedure and Investigations Act 1996 shall, in its application to Northern Ireland (as set out in Schedule 4 to that Act), be amended as follows.

(2) In section 14A(l) (public interest: review for scheduled offences) for "section 1 of the Northern Ireland (Emergency Provisions) Act 1996" substitute "section 64 of the Terrorism Act 2000".

(3) In section 39(3)(a) (start of trial on indictment without a jury) for "section 11 of the Northern Ireland (Emergency Provisions) Act 1996" substitute "section 74 of the Terrorism Act 2000".'.

No. 114, in page 135, line 2, at end insert—

'Northern Ireland Arms Decommissioning Act 1997 (c. 7)

.—(1) This paragraph applies to a reference in paragraph 9 or 10 of the Schedule to the Northern Ireland Arms Decommissioning Act 1997 (amnesty) to an offence under a provision ("the old provision") of—

(a) the Prevention of Terrorism (Temporary Provisions) Act 1989, or
(b) the Northern Ireland (Emergency Provisions) Act 1996.

(2) The reference shall be taken as a reference to an offence under this Act which is committed in circumstances which would have amounted to the commission of an offence under the old provision before it ceased to have effect.

(3) Sub-paragraph (2) has effect for the purpose of the application of section 4(1) of the Northern Ireland Arms Decommissioning Act 1997 (amnesty) in relation to anything done after the old provision ceases to have effect.'.

No. 115, in page 135, line 12, at end insert—

'Access to Justice Act 1999 (c. 22)

.—(1) In paragraph 2(1) of Schedule 2 to the Access to Justice Act 1999 (Community Legal Service: exceptions to excluded services) after paragraph (g) insert—
or
(h) the Proscribed Organisations Appeal Commission".

(2) The amendment made by sub-paragraph (1) is without prejudice to the power to make regulations under section 6(7) of the Access to Justice Act 1999 amending or revoking the provision inserted by that sub-paragraph.'.—[Mrs. McGuire.]

Schedule 15

REPEALS

Amendments made: No. 116, in page 135, line 19, at end insert—


'1984 c. 60.
Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1984.
Section 116(5).'.

No. 117, in page 135, line 35, at end insert—


 '1995 c. 40.
Criminal Procedure (Consequential In Provisions) (Scotland) Act 1995.
In Schedule 4, paragraph 72.'.

No. 118, in page 135, line 35, at end insert—


'1995 c. 43.
Proceeds of Crime (Scotland) Act 1995.
In section 49(1), the definition of "the 1989 Act".'.

No. 119, in page 136, line 4, at end insert—


'1999 c. 22.
Access to Justice Act 1999.
In paragraph 2(1) of Schedule 2, the word "or" after paragraph (f).'.

No. 120, in page 136, line 12, column 3, at end insert—




'Article 60(2). Article 66(12).'.

No. 121, in page 136, line 23, column 3, leave out "6,".—[Mrs. McGuire.]

Order for Third Reading read.

Motion made, and Question proposed, That the Bill be now read the Third time.—[Mr. Charles Clarke]

Mr. Lidington: I wish that this Bill were not necessary. However, it is very necessary for the protection and security of the people of this country. Throughout our proceedings on Second Reading, in Committee and this evening, the Minister and his team have approached the subject with realism. They have also shown courtesy to the views that have been expressed by hon. Members of all parties.
Conservative Members have some differences of opinion with the Government over some aspects of the Bill, but we agree strongly with the proposals. We agree that the Bill is essential and should be on the statute book swiftly. If there is a Division on Third Reading, we shall support the Government.

Mr. McNamara: I, too, congratulate my hon. Friends the Ministers, who have listened to the debate and tried to meet the points made. I cannot support the Bill wholeheartedly, but I shall not vote against it.
My hon. Friend the Minister of State was right to pay tribute to the work of the Northern Ireland Human Rights Commission, Liberty and the Committee on the Administration of Justice. When he introduced the Bill originally, my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary mentioned the work of Gearty and Kimbell in preparing the ground for Lord Lloyd's report. I declare an interest, as I was responsible for that work being produced, with the help of a considerable grant from Unison to the civil liberties department of King's College.
All the bodies that I have mentioned have expressed concern that the Bill does not meet the requirements of the European convention on human rights. Nothing that we have heard in evidence this evening has persuaded me or some other Labour Members that the Bill meets the main thrust of some of the points of the convention.
On Second Reading, I drew attention to some of the points that the Bill failed to meet, and I want to revisit them and see where we have got to.
Clause 3 deals with prescription. Article 11 of the ECHR provides for a right to peaceful assembly and asserts that limitation of that right must be proportionate. Proscription is a cosmetic part of the prevention of terrorism legislation that is little used in the fight against terrorism. We discussed that earlier this evening.
Clause 5 and schedule 3 deal with the appeals commission for proscribed organisations, as we discussed earlier. Judicial review is the first test of appeal. In the case involving gays in the military, the European Court of Human Rights said that that was not sufficient and that the case must be heard on its merits.
Clause 18 deals with the duty to disclose information. Its reversal of the burden of proof is especially dangerous, given the breadth of the definition of terrorism. It contravenes article 10 of the convention, which deals with the right of freedom of expression, in that it limits press freedom to collect information.
Clause 38 deals with the tipping-off offence, and again reverses the onus. It will stifle criticism of police and security and could contravene article 10 of the ECHR.
Clause 39 and 40 deal with powers of arrest, and will allow a constable to make an arrest without a warrant, on the grounds of reasonable suspicion. If such arrests take place to obtain information, rather than to secure a conviction, they will contravene article 5(1)(c) of the convention, which states that the intention behind an arrest must be to bring a suspect before a competent legal authority. Stop and search is contrary to the ECHR. In paragraph 2(6) of schedule 14 and clause 40(3), the right of access to lawyers can be delayed up to 48 hours. The contribution of my hon. Friend the Member for St. Helens, South (Mr. Bermingham) showed how that could breach article 6 of the European convention on human rights on the right of access to legal representation.
Clause 40 and schedule 7 deal with the detention of an individual for up to 48 hours and the exclusion of legal representatives from the application to extend the detention. Again, article 6 demands a right of access to a lawyer. Clause 43 deals with stop and search powers applied to anyone whom a policeman reasonably believes to be a terrorist. That is extremely dangerous, given the wide definition of terrorism, and probably violates article 8 of the ECHR on the right to privacy, unless interference is necessary in a democratic society.
Article 5(1)(c) of the convention provides for arrest, but with the requirement 'that a person is brought before a court. That provision is also contravened. Clauses 56 and 57 deal with offences to possess items and information that give rise to reasonable suspicion that they are being used for terrorist purposes. Again, the reverse onus clauses are included, which possibly breach article 6(2) of the convention on the right to be presumed innocent until proven guilty.
Article 10 of the ECHR provides a right to receive and impart information without interference from a public body, even if the ideas shock and disturb the state. That can be overruled only if the benefit to the state outweighs the cost to society. Given the current security climate, coupled with the reverse onus of proof, that would not seem to be a proportionate response.
I do not believe that the Government have faced up to the matters in the convention. I do not intend to divide the House because I think that that will be dealt with effectively and more directly by the European Court of Human Rights and, if not, by our own judges after October of this year. The Minister has, I believe, failed in that respect.
I welcome the independent review. I am only sorry that it is not followed by a guaranteed debate on the Floor of the House, plus an affirmative order, keeping the Bill in operation. The amendment that was not accepted earlier would have made the matter more complete.
It is regrettable that new clause 5 was not debated, because it dealt with the proposed Bill of Rights that is being discussed in Northern Ireland and that will be followed by legislation either later this year or early


next year. It will be a problem ensuring that the contents of the proposed human rights Bill are compatible with those of this Bill. It would have been wise to wait for that legislation. I regret that we did not have the criminal law review so that we could compare the two. It is a sad thing that the other place may have it but we will not. It will make judgments that we have been unable to make.
I regret that the Bill is necessary, but I will not divide the House on it.

Mr. Simon Hughes: I begin with the less controversial matters and thank the Ministers for courteously dealing with these matters in Committee and afterwards, and for the help that their officials have given in providing information. That was much appreciated.
The debate has been appreciated by all right hon. and hon. Members, from all parties. Points were made and answered—we did not just play to each other in a series of monologues. Where we differed, we differed, but at least we tested the opinion of others.
I join the hon. Member for Hull, North (Mr. McNamara) in thanking those who briefed the Committee generally and individual members personally. I thank Liberty, which is based in my constituency, for its assistance, not least on an amendment on a crucial matter. I also thank the two Northern Ireland organisations, the Committee on the Administration of Justice and the Human Rights Commission.
That leads me to the more controversial element of my remarks. The chief commissioner of the Northern Ireland Human Rights Commission judged at the end of our proceedings—up to yesterday—that the Bill was seriously flawed. The commission is the one human rights body in the United Kingdom that we have set up to give statutory advice to Parliament and to public authorities. If it tells us that we are doing the wrong thing, we should listen carefully.
On Second Reading, my colleagues and I made it clear that we support the idea of a United Kingdom-wide Bill, rather than a partial UK Bill, and a Bill that would get rid of exclusion orders. This Bill does that. However, we said that we did not support the idea of a Bill that could not return to the House for further consideration once it was on the statute book. There is a difference between permanent legislation and legislation that contains no power of review. One can have the permanent framework, but with a power of review. It is a serious defect that the Bill does not have that.
After Second Reading, which we supported because we support the principle of a Terrorism Bill, we suggested having a Special Standing Committee to consider and take evidence on some of the difficult issues—we have now suggested that twice this year, but we do not do it to be tokenism. Tonight's debate has vindicated the wisdom of that proposal. The key issue in the Bill is how one defines terrorism. Clearly, a huge amount of work remains to be done to achieve a definition that would meet with the agreement of large numbers of people in the House and outside it, if that can be achieved. A Special Standing

Committee might have been able to make some progress on that matter, but we did not have one. It was left to the debate in Committee.
One of the fundamental flaws that remains in the Bill is the fact that the definition of terrorism is extremely wide and is not targeted. Large groups of people whom we have never contemplated as terrorists may well be caught within it.
Another area of concern is that excessive powers are given to Ministers and the authorities and cannot be reviewed. A further recurrent problem is that far too often the Bill does not uphold the normal legal rights of individuals. Only an hour ago, we debated the reverse burden of proof—defendants have to prove that they are not guilty to establish their innocence.
Our conclusion is that the Bill has not been amended as it badly needed to be, and that it will not be fit for the statute book when it leaves this House—if Third Reading is agreed to—in that it will not sufficiently uphold liberties and does not get the balance right. We had to make the straightforward, but difficult decision whether to continue to support the Bill or to force a vote. We decided collectively that we could not support the Bill as it stands. It has not made the progress that it ought to have made and the other place will have much work to do on it—in particular on the legal aspects and the civil and criminal justice processes—to put it right.
However, as it is important that we have UK-wide legislation on terrorism and because the Bill contains some good provisions, we will not go into the Lobby against the Government tonight—[Interruption.] Nearly all my colleagues have been here all evening and have voted many times against specific provisions of the Bill.
The Bill does not have our support as it needs to be amended significantly. Unless we amend it, it will not get the balance right and the state will end up with excessive powers against the citizen. I hope that the good will and good faith of Ministers will ensure that the work that needs to be done where we and they have said that the Bill is defective, can be done. Above all, if we are to have a Terrorism Bill on the statute book for the whole of the United Kingdom, I hope that we can define terrorism correctly. We regret that we have not made more progress in the three months that the Bill has been in this place.

Dr. Lynne Jones: I shall not detain the House for long. Like most hon. Members, I accept that, unfortunately, the measure is necessary. However, I share the concern of my colleagues about the definition of terrorism used in the Bill.
My hon. Friend the Minister, in rejecting the alternative proposal made by my hon. Friend the Member for Hull, North (Mr. McNamara), said that that definition could have included the Yorkshire Ripper as a terrorist. I point out to my hon. Friend the Minister that Peter Sutcliffe terrorised the people of Yorkshire—especially women. Many members of the public might feel that a definition that included such a person would be more acceptable than one that included, for example, the women who inflicted serious violence on Hawk jets or who attempted to inflict serious violence on a Trident submarine.
For that reason, I hope that the Government will use the opportunity afforded during consideration of the Bill in another place to find a new definition that will ensure that the concerns expressed tonight are taken on board.

Mr. McDonnell: I apologise to my hon. Friends and comrades for detaining them. Many of us had an almost personal relationship with the predecessor legislation to the Bill.
In the early 1980s, Errol and Theresa Smalley approached me because they were concerned about their nephew—Paul Hill—who was one of the first people picked up under the prevention of terrorism Acts, and subsequently framed. I visited him in prison over the years—with my hon. Friend the Member for Islington, North (Mr. Corbyn). I even attended his wedding in Long Lartin. It took more than half a decade to secure his release.
Throughout the 1980s, many members of the Irish community in this country campaigned for the eradication of the PTA—as did many members of the Labour party. Indeed, at one time, it was the policy of our party to repeal the Act. The PTA was used to harass the Irish community; it was ineffective and a source of injustice.
The Bill makes that legislation permanent. We have rejected the possibility of a parliamentary review; tonight, we rejected the potential for a quinquennial review. The Bill extends the scope of that legislation; it widens the definition to include many people who could never be defined as terrorist. It sets the scene for further miscarriages of justice. I cannot support the Bill and will vote against it.

Mr. Corbyn: I, too, will be brief. I endorse the comments of my hon. Friend the Member for Hayes and Harlington (Mr. McDonnell). I also remember clearly the saga of the Guildford Four and the way in which, under the prevention of terrorism Act, wholly innocent people were picked up by the police merely for attending meetings to discuss the situation in Ireland or because they were framed by others. They were subsequently released, but they have never forgotten the scar of interrogation.
Paul Hill was the first person to be arrested under the PTA. From that, followed the misery of the 17 years that he suffered in prison. I had hoped that we would get rid of such draconian legislation.
My worry is that the measure that I suspect the House will accept on Third Reading is draconian. It could be used against people who peacefully and legitimately campaign for change in their own country, but who live in the UK because it is not safe for them to mount such campaigns in their home country. That international dimension needs to be considered.
There is also the question of the rejected amendment in the name of the hon. Member for Southwark, North and Bermondsey (Mr. Hughes), which sought to amend the clause that forces people to prove their innocence. That theme runs through the Bill, and it is bad legislation. It shifts the burden from the prosecution to prove an individual's guilt to the individual to prove their innocence, something that is obviously extremely difficult to do.
We have been through the pain of miscarriages of justice—Birmingham, Guildford, Judith Ward, Prem, and many others. Not all those cases were related to the prevention of terrorism Act, but they were miscarriages of justice. Parliament recognised that by setting up the Criminal Cases Review Commission. We recognised that the legal system in this country was not infallible. My concern is that without any possibility of review, the Bill might lead, although I hope that it will not, to further miscarriages of justice.
I suspect that we will be back here very soon, either because the House of Lords will significantly amend the Bill so that it must return here or because it will be overridden by the European convention on human rights and found wanting in European or British courts. I suspect that we will be amending the Bill in the near future. We ought to have better drafting of legislation in the first place so that we do not end up in that situation.
I agree with my hon. Friend the Member for Hayes and Harlington. I have seen the effect of miscarriages of justice caused by crudely formed legislation to deal with terrorism. I am not in favour of violence or terrorism, but one does not solve those problems by imprisoning the innocent. In fact, one creates a far worse problem because if one imprisons the innocent, what happens to the guilty? The Bill will not do us any good, and we will be back here discussing it in the near future. I shall join my hon. Friend in opposing the Bill.

Mr. Charles Clarke: I begin by expressing my thanks, first to members of the Committee, Opposition spokesmen and my right hon. Friend the Minister of State, Northern Ireland Office for the way in which we have worked. Secondly, I thank the Bill team, who gave tremendous support throughout the proceedings, not only to Ministers but to all members of the Committee. Thirdly, I thank the officials of the House, including Hansard staff and clerks, who have worked extremely effectively. We have had an efficient and full discussion of many of the issues.
We have had a lengthy debate this evening, so I shall try to be brief, but I need to address some of the points that have been made. It is clear that my hon. Friend the Member for Hull, North (Mr. McNamara) was not satisfied with the answers given in the discussion, and that is entirely his right. However, it is simply not true that the Government have not faced up to the issues. In particular we have directly addressed the implications of the Human Rights Act 1998 and the various issues arising from that. I know that there will be controversy about the issues because people will argue that cases will arise.
The hon. Member for Southwark, North and Bermondsey (Mr. Hughes) and my hon. Friend the Member for Islington, North (Mr. Corbyn) have expressed concern about the inability to return to these issues. The doctrine of the omnicompetence of Parliament has simply not been grasped. There is a series of issues about the ways in which Parliament exercises its scrutiny in discussion, but it is possible, and indeed likely, that Parliament will return to discussion of these issues because it has a right and a duty to do so.
We have had a full discussion about the definitional points. Our definition is right, and it is defensible and positive. I acknowledge the difficulties of balance, and I repeat, as I have said throughout the debate, that we will


consider proposals that have been made. I repeat my thanks to those organisations that have sought to make constructive proposals.
The Bill starts from the necessity to recognise the existence of domestic and international terrorism, and the terrible things that terrorists do—blowing planes out of the sky, destroying buildings, blowing up people and knee-capping. There is a vast range of activities. The obligation not only of Ministers but of all elected politicians and legislators is to ask what we can do to address international terrorism, and to do everything in our power to prevent those who want to terrorise us from being able to do so. Our need and our duty is to fight terrorism domestically and internationally, and that is what the Bill is about.
It is absolutely true—it has been a theme running through our discussions—that the need to defeat international and domestic terrorism has to be set against the individual liberties of every citizen in the country and their right to be properly treated under the law. Another theme has been the need to avoid the abuses of justice, to which my hon. Friends the Members for Islington, North and for Hayes and Harlington (Mr. McDonnell) referred. They are absolutely right to say that we must achieve the right balance.
I say as emphatically as I can that it is our duty both to maintain the rights of individuals under the rule of law and to maintain their right to very existence and life in the face of the threat posed by international terrorism. It is our duty to ensure that we do all in our power to inhibit terrorists' ability to destroy, kill and create a negative atmosphere in our society. That is why we have introduced the Bill, it is why I hope that my hon. Friends will support it and it is why I am grateful for the support of the official Opposition. I commend the Bill to the whole House.

Question put, That the Bill be now read the Third time:—

The House divided: Ayes 210, Noes 1.

Division No. 114]
[1.50 pm


AYES


Ainger, Nick
Cann, Jamie


Ainsworth, Robert (Cov'try NE)
Caplin, Ivor


Allen, Graham
Casale, Roger


Arbuthnot, Rt Hon James
Cawsey, Ian


Atkins, Charlotte
Chapman, Ben (Wirral S)


Austin, John
Clapham, Michael


Banks, Tony
Clark, Dr Lynda (Edinburgh Pentlands)


Barnes, Harry



Beard, Nigel
Clark, Paul (Gillingham)


Beckett, Rt Hon Mrs Margaret
Clarke, Charles (Norwich S)


Benn, Hilary (Leeds C)
Clelland, David


Bennett, Andrew F
Clifton-Brown, Geoffrey


Benton, Joe
Clwyd, Ann


Berry, Roger
Coaker, Vernon


Blackman, Liz
Coffey, Ms Ann


Blears, Ms Hazel
Collins, Tim


Borrow, David
Colman, Tony


Bradley, Keith (Withington)
Connarty, Michael


Bradshaw, Ben
Corston, Jean


Burgon, Colin
Cousins, Jim


Butler, Mrs Christine
Cox, Tom


Campbell, Alan (Tynemouth)
Cranston, Ross


Campbell-Savours, Dale
Crausby, David





Cummings, John
Mackinlay, Andrew


Cunningham, Jim (Cov'try S)
McLoughlin, Patrick


Darvill, Keith
Mactaggart, Fiona


Davey, Valerie (Bristol W)
McWalter, Tony


Dawson, Hilton
Mallaber, Judy


Day, Stephen
Marsden, Paul (Shrewsbury)


Dowd, Jim
Meacher, Rt Hon Michael


Eagle, Angela (Wallasey)
Merron, Gillian


Eagle, Maria (L'pool Garston)
Miller, Andrew


Ennis, Jeff
Moffatt, Laura


Flint, Caroline
Moonie, Dr Lewis


Foster, Rt Hon Derek
Moran, Ms Margaret


Foster, Michael J (Worcester)
Morley, Elliot


Gapes, Mike
Mountford, Kali


George, Bruce (Walsall S)
Murphy, Denis (Wansbeck)


Gerrard, Neil
Murphy, Rt Hon Paul (Torfaen)


Gibson, Dr Ian
Naysmith, Dr Doug


Gilroy, Mrs Linda
O'Brien, Bill (Normanton)


Godman, Dr Norman A
O'Brien, Mike (N Warks)


Godsiff, Roger
O'Brien, Stephen (Eddisbury)


Goggins, Paul
O'Hara, Eddie


Golding, Mrs Llin
Olner, Bill


Gordon, Mrs Eileen
Organ, Mrs Diana


Griffiths, Jane (Reading E)
Pearson, Ian


Griffiths, Win (Bridgend)
Pickthall, Colin


Grogan, John
Pike, Peter L


Hall, Mike (Weaver Vale)
Plaskitt, James


Hall, Patrick (Bedford)
Pollard, Kerry


Hamilton, Fabian (Leeds NE)
Pope, Greg


Hanson, David
Pound, Stephen


Heal, Mrs Sylvia
Prentice, Ms Bridget (Lewisham E)


Healey, John
Prosser, Gwyn


Hepburn, Stephen
Purchase, Ken


Heppell, John
Quin, Rt Hon Ms Joyce


Hesford, Stephen
Quinn, Lawrie


Hinchliffe, David
Rammell, Bill


Hope, Phil
Rapson, Syd


Howarth, Alan (Newport E)
Reed, Andrew (Loughborough)


Hoyle, Lindsay
Rooney, Terry


Hughes, Kevin (Doncaster N)
Ross, Ernie (Dundee W)


Hurst, Alan
Rowlands, Ted


Hutton, John
Ruane, Chris


Iddon, Dr Brian
Russell, Ms Christine (Chester)


Illsley, Eric
Ryan, Ms Joan


Ingram, Rt Hon Adam
Salter, Martin


Jackson, Helen (Hillsborough)
Sawford, Phil


Jamieson, David
Sedgemore, Brian


Jenkins, Brian
Shaw, Jonathan


Johnson, Miss Melanie (Welwyn Hatfield)
Singh, Marsha



Smith, Rt Hon Andrew (Oxford E)


Jones, Rt Hon Barry (Alyn)
Smith, Angela (Basildon)


Jones, Mrs Fiona (Newark)
Smith, Miss Geraldine (Morecambe & Lunesdale)


Jones, Helen (Warrington N)



Jones, Jon Owen (Cardiff C)
Soley, Clive


Jones, Martyn (Clwyd S)
Squire, Ms Rachel


Keeble, Ms Sally
Starkey, Dr Phyllis


Keen, Alan (Feltham & Heston)
Steinberg, Gerry


Kennedy, Jane (Wavertree)
Stewart, David (Inverness E)


Khabra, Piara S
Stoate, Dr Howard


Kidney, David
Strang, Rt Hon Dr Gavin


Kilfoyle, Peter
Straw, Rt Hon Jack


Kumar, Dr Ashok
Stringer, Graham


Laxton, Bob
Stuart, Ms Gisela


Lepper, David
Taylor, Rt Hon Mrs Ann (Dewsbury)


Levitt, Tom



Lewis, Ivan (Bury S)
Taylor, Ms Dari (Stockton S)


Lidington, David
Taylor, David (NW Leics)


Linton, Martin
Thomas, Gareth R (Harrow W)


Lock, David
Timms, Stephen


Love, Andrew
Tipping, Paddy


Luff, Peter
Todd, Mark


McAvoy, Thomas
Touhig, Don


McCabe, Steve
Trickett, Jon


McDonagh, Siobhain
Turner, Dennis (Wolverh'ton SE)


McFall, John
Turner, Dr Desmond (Kemptown)


McIsaac, Shona
Turner, Neil (Wigan)






Tynan, Bill
Winterton, Ms Rosie (Doncaster C)


Vis, Dr Rudi
Wood, Mike


Walley, Ms Joan
Woolas, Phil


Ward, Ms Claire
Worthington, Tony


Watts, David
Wright, Anthony D (Gt Yarmouth)


White, Brian
Wyatt, Derek


Widdecombe, Rt Hon Miss Ann



Williams, Alan W (E Carmarthen)
Tellers for the Ayes:


Williams, Mrs Betty (Conwy)
Mr. Clive Betts and


Winnick, David
Mr. Gerry Sutcliffe.




NOES



Tellers for the Noes:


Flynn, Paul
Mr. John McDonnell and



Mr. Jeremy Corbyn.

Question accordingly agreed to.

Bill read the Third time, and passed.

Prevention and Suppression of Terrorism

The Secretary of State for the Home Department (Mr. Jack Straw): I beg to move,
That the draft Prevention of Terrorism (Temporary Provisions) Act 1989 (Continuance) Order 2000, which was laid before this House on 3rd March, be approved.
Many principles behind the continuance order have been discussed in more than nine hours of debate today, and in many hours in Committee and on Second Reading of the Terrorism Bill. I shall therefore try not to detain the House for too long.
In an intervention on Third Reading of the Terrorism Bill, my hon. Friend the Member for Hull, North (Mr. McNamara) asked about its compatibility with the Human Rights Act 1998. It is right for me to tell the House our opinion of the compatibility of the continuance order with that Act.
The United Kingdom Government have had to enter a derogation from the 1998 Act because of the executive power for extensions of detention. That derogation arose from the case of Brogan, which came before the European Court. Apart from that derogation, I am satisfied that all the provisions that we want to renew tonight comply with convention rights.
We are considering the 1999 report on the operation of the prevention of terrorism Act by Mr. John Rowe QC, who has undertaken his usual thorough review of the provisions.

Mr. Kevin McNamara: When will my right hon. Friend inform the Council of Europe that the derogation from the Human Rights Act 1998 no longer needs to apply to Britain?

Mr. Straw: We should be able to do that when the Terrorism Bill becomes law, if it is passed in another place. I hope that that will happen.
I should like to place on record my appreciation and thanks to Mr. Rowe for a further year's work in carefully and assiduously reviewing the operation of the provisions. To pick up the point that my hon. Friend the Member for Hull, North made about human rights, in paragraph 21 of the report Mr. Rowe states that on many occasions, the person interviewed—police officers or others to whom the prevention of terrorism Act is relevant—
volunteered, before I mentioned it, the question of the Human Rights Act, or breach of human rights. I learned that in many spheres there is active training going on about the elements of the Human Rights Act and human rights; and the general impression I received was that people are aware of the need to have in mind the Convention.
Those remarks are encouraging.
Mr. Rowe's report is concerned with 1999. In those 12 months, we had great optimism over the Good Friday agreement and, towards the end of the year, considerable pessimism about its full implementation. Notwithstanding the fact that the ceasefire continued, seven deaths in Northern Ireland occurred as a consequence of terrorist violence. I ought to remind the House of two: in June, Elizabeth O'Neill was killed in her home by a pipe bomb thrown through the window and, almost exactly a year ago, Rosemary Nelson was murdered in an act of sheer


brutality as she left her home in her car. Terrorist-related incidents also occurred on the mainland. In particular, I draw the House's attention to the siege of the Greek embassy in London last year.
The Home Office statistical bulletin on the operation of the prevention of terrorism legislation, which was published earlier this month, gives details of the use of those powers. In summary, 12 persons were detained in connection with Northern Irish terrorism during 1999—down from 20 the previous year—and 87 were detained in connection with international terrorism, up from 25 in 1998. The former powers to make exclusion orders were not used in 1999 and have now lapsed. That followed undertakings that I gave in opposition, which we have implemented in full in government. Of the 99 persons detained in 1999, 84 were charged with an offence. Extensions of detention were granted for eight persons, 437 persons were examined for more than an hour but not detained and 29 were charged with an offence. Mr. Rowe spells out in his report that he believes that the powers have been properly used and that they are needed for renewal.

Mr. Simon Hughes: A matter on which Mr. Rowe reports is the operation of amendments to the prevention of terrorism legislation represented by the Criminal Justice (Terrorism and Conspiracy) Act 1998. His brief chapters 7 and 9 confirm that neither has been used. He makes no comment about that. Does the Home Secretary have a comment as to whether it is necessary for them to continue?

Mr. Straw: I suggest to the House that it does not always follow that the only proof of whether powers are needed is whether they are used. They can often have important deterrent value. That was part of the debate when the House considered that Act in September 1998. I believe that they are necessary for renewal, but the hon. Gentleman will know that they are replaced in the Terrorism Bill.
When the Terrorism Bill receives Royal Assent, as I hope that it will when it is passed by the other place, it will provide new, modernised counter-terrorism legislation proportionate to the threat that we face. However, it is vital that there is continuity and that the existing counter-terrorism powers remain available for the period before the Bill comes into force, pending the enactment and implementation of the new legislation through the renewal of the current legislation by the order.

Miss Ann Widdecombe: Many of the points that we would have expected to cover were dealt with at length when the Terrorism Bill was debated so it may please the House to know that I shall be brief.
I join the Home Secretary in paying tribute to Mr. Rowe for his report, which convincingly argues that the provisions of the prevention of terrorism Act are needed for another year. The Conservative party, in opposition and in government, has never shirked its duty to take the toughest stand against terrorism and to give the police and the armed forces the powers that they need

to protect the public. In that spirit, we fully support the report's conclusions and with them, therefore, the continuance of the Act.
The reasons given for the Act's continuance are compelling. In the past year, there have been substantial and welcome moves towards peace in the Province of Northern Ireland but, although the security situation in Northern Ireland has greatly improved, none of the main paramilitary organisations has even begun to decommission its illegally held arms and explosives. The capability of the paramilitaries therefore remains undiminished, and their organisations remain firmly intact. They retain huge arsenal of weapons, and continue to carry out shootings, beatings and mutilations and to exile people from their homes.
The Rowe report states that
firearms, and ammunition, and bombing and explosive devices have been discovered, and this, among other things, is clear evidence that paramilitary groups have been making preparations to make violent attacks on the community. In the course of searches by security forces as many firearms have been found in 1999 as in 1998.
While those groups maintain the capability and the infrastructure to perpetrate gross acts of terrorism, we must ensure that our police and security services have the powers that are necessary to combat them.
Acts of violence carried out by paramilitary groups are also still prevalent in the Province. The report states that
through 1999 there has been continuing incidence of deaths, injury and damage to property, carried out by paramilitary groups.
The findings of the report are borne out by figures given in reply to parliamentary questions. The Northern Ireland Office recently stated that there had been 225 shooting or bombing incidents in Northern Ireland during 1999, and figures supplied by the Government reveal that 2,400 persons have been injured as a result of terrorist attacks since the Good Friday agreement. During the same period, 49 deaths have been attributed to the security situation in Northern Ireland. The attack on an hotel in February and recent attempted attacks on Army bases in Northern Ireland remind us that the threat from terrorist groups has not gone away. Even with decommissioning by the main paramilitary groups, the dissidents opposed to the Good Friday agreement will retain their capacity for terror and destruction.
The Act, however, is not concerned solely with Northern Ireland. The Rowe report states that
in the international field, the threat to the United Kingdom of terrorism continues year by year.
We need only read the history of terrorism on the international scene, written by Professor Wilkinson and contained in volume II of the report of Lord Lloyd's inquiry, to realise that the threat is still there.
The order gives special powers to the police and security services to deal with the threat of terrorism. They include provisions allowing for the admissibility of evidence from a police officer that a defendant belonged to a specified organisation, along with other powers which the Home Secretary has already set out and which I shall therefore not repeat.

Dr. Ian Gibson: And this is a brief speech?

Miss Widdecombe: It could become longer, if I were tempted.
Today the House has debated the Terrorism Bill, which will combine the existing emergency provisions Act and prevention of terrorism Act in a single piece of permanent UK-wide legislation. As I have said, we support the Bill; but if the Home Secretary speaks again—he does not seem much inclined to do so at the moment—he should give the House an assurance that the order contains all the provisions that it should contain.
I shall not be ungenerous enough to dwell on the error in the Home Office that allowed—

Mr. Straw: The right hon. Lady will not be surprised to learn that I have double-checked and sought assurances. I cannot be certain that there is not some glitch elsewhere in the small print, but I am assured that every section of the famous part IV—one bit of which was not brought into force last year—is being brought into force this year. The officials have staked their pensions on that.

Miss Widdecombe: I hope that the Home Secretary has staked his pension on it as well, as he has said that he will take personal responsibility for everything that happens in the Horne Office.
In view of that assurance, it only remains for me to regret that, when the Government were in opposition, they did not give us the support that we are rendering them tonight. Nevertheless, we consider it to be overwhelmingly in the interests of the security of Northern Ireland for us to render that support, despite the Government's rather ungenerous approach when they were in opposition.

Mr. Simon Hughes: Mr. Rowe's report is particularly welcome. It is clear that he has done a thorough job in the past year, as he did before. We thank him for that.
It almost goes without saying that one of the benefits of the renewal process is that it has a reporting structure, so that we have the basis on which we can judge the appropriateness of continuing all the legislation. On the basis of the report and analysis, we, like the right hon. Member for Maidstone and The Weald (Miss Widdecombe), her party and the Government, can come to no conclusion other than that the present legislation should continue while Parliament is debating what legislation to put in its place. There are two reasons why it is vital that we do that.
First, as so often in the past quarter century, we are in a delicate period in the history of Northern Ireland. To take away the security that special legislation gives would be unsettling at the moment, when people are calling for a more settled and permanent solution. If the politics can deliver a settled arrangement with the devolved Assembly and the like, that will be all the more reason why it will not be necessary to have the exceptional powers in an Act such as the PTA.
Secondly, some of us have been here since 5 o'clock to debate the Government's proposed legislation to replace the prevention of terrorism legislation. We have

our criticisms. They have been aired, but it would be inappropriate, when the Government have honoured their commitment a year ago to bring a Bill to the House that put legislation in a UK-wide context and that did not require annual renewal, for us then to say that it was right to take away the shield, the safeguard, that the order provides in the interim.
We hope that this will be the last occasion that we have to renew the prevention of terrorism legislation, with its exceptional and, in some ways, unfair powers. Whatever the necessity for anti-terrorism legislation, it would be better if there were a different Act of Parliament, so we hope that it is the last occasion.
Clearly, it would be inappropriate, not just in Northern Ireland but generally, to allow any of our citizens not to have the protection of some legislation, so the choice that we have tonight is stark. Put crudely, it is whether to continue with what we have, which has inadequacies, but which the report shows is working relatively well in providing security; or to have a few months with nothing at all.
We have opted for the first option, but the lesson of the exercise is that it is appropriate not just to have a report regularly to Parliament, but that Parliament should have the opportunity to decide whether and how to renew the legislation. I hope that the practice that we are going through on the PTA will be one that the Government adopt for the Terrorism Bill. At least once a Parliament the provisions should come back to Parliament for consideration on the basis of such a report.

Mr. Kevin McNamara: I do not intend to delay the House long, but it is incumbent on me to reply to the right hon. Member for Maidstone and The Weald (Miss Widdecombe) and to congratulate my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary on his action in changing the legislation. We voted against the PTA renewal orders because they contained provisions for internment without trial and for exclusion orders, both of which were contrary to human rights and caused considerable unfairness and unhappiness and considerable problems.
Exclusion orders set up people as targets in the areas in which they lived if they ventured outside their community. Internment without trial was one of the major things that helped to supply recruits to the Provisional IRA, so my right hon. Friend is to be congratulated on introducing an order that does not contain either of those provisions. It is good that he has done so, and that fact should be recorded. I have taken part in as many of these debates as anyone, and I am happy that this will be the last on the old legislation. Like the hon. Member for Southwark, North and Bermondsey (Mr. Hughes), though, I should have hoped for scrutiny of the renewal of the forthcoming Terrorism Act on the Floor of the House every year.

Question put and agreed to.

Resolved,

That the draft Prevention of Terrorism (Temporary Provisions) Act 1989 (Continuance) Order 2000, which was laid before this House on 3rd March, be approved.

Dairy Industry

Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[Mr. Mike Hall.]

Mr. Tim Collins: A little over 12 hours ago, I met a number of my constituents who had come to London as part of a national demonstration by dairy farmers about the state of their industry. Members of Parliament from all parties were present during the demonstration, recognising the scale of difficulties facing the industry.
I congratulate those who organised the demonstration, which began with four farmers sitting around a kitchen table in Kendal, in my constituency. They had in mind the idea of trying to create an agricultural analogy to the Jarrow march of the 1930s when there was great despair in certain communities in our country. It is not wrong of us to recognise that some of our agricultural communities face despair, bleakness, lack of hope and fear for the future that parallel the experiences of some communities in the 1930s.
On a personal note, I should say that my parents were dairy farmers. I no longer have a direct family connection with dairy farming, but I take a personal interest in it. While mentioning family links, I welcome the presence of my hon. Friend the Member for Eddisbury (Mr. O'Brien), whose connections with south Cumbria mean that he holds that part of the world as dearly in his heart as I do in mine. I also thank my hon. Friends the Members for Cotswold (Mr. Clifton-Brown) and for Mid-Worcestershire (Mr. Luff) for their presence. Both strongly support the dairy industry.
I can reassure the Minister of State, Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food by saying that I do not intend to make a series of partisan points. I accept, of course, that the problems of the dairy industry did not spring instantly into being on 1 May 1997. Some pre-dated the general election, and we accept that the Government have no magic wand. No one who came to London today to demonstrate believes that the Government have it within their gift simply to solve all the problems of the dairy industry. Nor did any of them seriously question the good will of the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food. I welcome the fact that he met some of the demonstrators, including some of my constituents. I applaud his generosity in making his time available.
That said, the Minister of State will recognise that the scale of the problem cannot be understated. The National Farmers Union has provided me with a brief that states, in its very first sentence:
British dairy farming is facing meltdown.
The crisis is not minor or temporary. Nor is it analogous to anything that we have seen for decades. Its scale is without parallel in recent history.
I commend the Select Committee on Agriculture on its second report on the marketing of milk, which was published earlier this year. It provides useful material for the House, and I shall press the Minister on some points that arise from it.
The issues raised by many of the farmers who came to the demonstration today will not be unfamiliar to the Minister, but they bear some repetition. Farmers find it extremely frustrating that they sell milk at sometimes less than half—even no more than a third—of the price of bottled water in some supermarkets. It is impossible for any farmer, however efficient and however much he or she bears down on costs, to break even when the milk price is so low. Farmers feel strongly that they are asked to meet, and succeed in doing so, the highest milk quality standards in Europe. Yet they receive the lowest reward of any farmers in Europe. The United Kingdom is bottom of the European milk price league. On some comparisons, the milk price is lower now than it has ever been. They feel that the issue of agrimonetary compensation needs to be addressed seriously by the Government.
We recognise that it is not an easy issue, and the Minister will know that previous Governments have not found it easy to address it—in some ways, the Government have been more generous than their predecessor on the issue—but she will also recognise that the scale of the difficulties facing the industry are greater than they were under any previous Government. Therefore, I hope that the Minister and her colleagues will be able to give serious consideration to the issue. As she knows, the money has to be claimed by April, or the opportunity to claim it will disappear.
Today, dairy farmers raised with a great deal of passion and feeling the issue of what they regard as the truly absurd Monopolies and Mergers Commission report. That report was crazy, crackpot, damaging, slipshod and quite simply the worst piece of official documentation presented for many a long year. The idea that the fundamental problem affecting the milk market is excessive producer power driving up the milk price is so far at variance with the reality that farmers are having to experience that it beggars belief that anyone could have put it down on paper.
I recognise the fact that the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry did not simply accept that report, but felt the need to reflect on it. However, the outcome has been that we are moving towards a situation in which Milk Marque is breaking itself into three. As the Minister will recognise, the Secretary of State said in his evidence to the Select Committee that that was highly likely to lead to a further fall in the farmgate price of milk, which will only make the problems that we are talking about today even worse. Again, I accept that that is not direct Government responsibility, but that report was extremely damaging and should have been binned, rather than, in some ways, being implemented.
We have to move on to deal with the world as it is, rather than the world as it might have been. I should be interested in anything that the Minister has to say, particularly on a point that the Agriculture Minister himself discussed with my constituents and others today: the possibility of finding some means of bringing together—perhaps in a forum, which, in its report, the Select Committee itself mentioned—all the players in the dairy industry, perhaps with the Government playing an enabling role, so that all the parties sit down and put aside the petty jealousies, back biting and spiteful fighting that has gone on for many years in the industry, and recognise that they have a collective interest. The dairy industry is a £3 billion industry, which is a significant part of the United Kingdom economy. Anything that the Government


can do positively to encourage co-operation and the recognition of common interests would be much welcomed by dairy farmers.
There is the issue of quotas. I do not want to detain the Minister long on that, but she will know that many dairy farmers feel that the deal that was done last year by the Government was not a great one for the United Kingdom. The United Kingdom's quotas were frozen for six years, while Ireland—which produces about four times its consumption requirement—received additional quotas.
Dairy farmers raised another issue and—although there are perhaps only a limited number of spheres in which the Government could provide immediate assistance—they asked me specifically to press the Minister on it: the issue of increasing the price in the over-30-month scheme, and reconsideration of phasing out the calf-processing aid scheme. We know that none of those actions is likely to provide a panacea, but it would be helpful if the Minister could say whether the Government are prepared at least to consider them.

Mr. Stephen O'Brien: I congratulate my hon. Friend on initiating this debate, which is of key interest to my constituents in Eddisbury—which, as the Minister will well know, shares with North Shropshire the honour of being Europe's largest milk field. I have not only large dairy farmers, but small dairy farmers. However, the economies of scale that one would expect to be a differentiating factor between them simply no longer exist. That is a major plight that is affecting all dairy farmers.
In addition to sharing the sentiments expressed about south Cumbria—to which I have a fond attachment—I should like to mention that, when I met my constituents at today's lobby, there was a great sense of dismay about the absence of Government support for immediate action on the Food Labelling Bill, which the Minister and I had a discussion on just over a week ago, in this very place. It is yet another matter on which Government action really must be focused.

Mr. Collins: I am grateful to my hon. Friend. As he knows, I strongly support his proposed legislation and I hope that the Government think again on that.
As the Minister will recognise, perhaps the most disturbing aspect of the agricultural situation is that even a year ago—certainly two years ago—dairy farmers and farmers in any agricultural sector would say that things were grim, but in six months' time they would be better. They said that six months after six months until six or nine months ago. As the Minister will probably acknowledge, sadly, farmers are no longer saying that—they have endured so many knocks, so many hopes have been dashed, and so many chances that there was light at the end of the tunnel have proved fruitless.
An entire generation of farmers believe that they will be the last. The average age of farmers is something like 57. Many fewer farmers' sons and daughters expect to follow their parents into farming than was the case before. As a result, many farmers who are still in business do not expect to hand over to the next generation, something that has been a great incentive to invest and produce for the future, but are simply carrying on, waiting for the opportunity to get out of the industry and retire. That is very sad.
It is allied to the point that was made to me by Matthew Robinson, one of my constituents who came down to London for the demonstration earlier today, that they way in which the financial constraints are biting is hitting the new, younger, possibly more technologically sophisticated and more efficient farmers who are at the start of their careers, have heavy borrowings and are perhaps most vulnerable to a financial shock. Older farmers, who may have paid off their mortgages and loans, are more likely to keep going for a few more years, hoping that things will get better, because they will have built up some fat on which they can depend.
The Select Committee stated at paragraph 43 of its report:
sadly, there are likely to be more casualties before any real recovery is felt.
We should not kid ourselves that only the less efficient, older producers will be forced out by the present circumstances. It may well be the next generation who are knocked out and, if we are not careful, the industry will have no future at all.
My final point relates to the nature of farming in my constituency. I represent a large chunk of the lake district. The Minister will recognise that a large number of the farmers there—both dairy and otherwise—are hill farmers. Consequently, they are on the margin of the margin. In many cases, the dairy part of their farming was the diversification strategy, alongside sheep. Now they find that the sheep market and the dairy market are down. Some of them depend on farming incomes of only £2,000 or £3,000. Many of them are on family credit and are really at the margin of viability.
Paragraph 44 of the Select Committee report specifically addressed the fact that those small family farms are important to the industry because of what they bring to the environment, the social life of the area and rural communities. It stated:
The benefits currently provided by small and remote dairy farms can only be retained in the prevailing circumstances by a Government policy which recognises the environmental and social rationale for assisting them … We recommend that the Government commission research into the implications for the rural economy and the environment of further structural change in the dairy sector. We further recommend that the Government identify areas where small farms are at risk as priority areas for help under rural development measures.
I hope that the Minister will say something about that. There is a general problem across the board for the dairy sector, particularly in my part of the world, where the only significant alternative employment is in tourism. Frankly, tourists come to the lake district to see not blasted heath and wilderness but a man-made landscape. Without the small dairy farmers, we will not have that landscape and the pit prop of the whole underpinning of the economy in large tracts of Cumbria and elsewhere will be knocked away.
Inevitably, it is not possible in such a short debate to raise all the problems facing the industry, but I hope that the Minister will say that the Government recognise the scale of the problem, that they accept that there should be a strategy to keep a significant dairy industry viable and that they will address specifically, perhaps in the context of the Prime Minister's farming summit on 30 March, the need to provide targeted assistance for the dairy industry and to help small dairy producers in particular.

The Minister of State, Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food (Ms Joyce Quin): I congratulate the hon. Member for Westmorland and Lonsdale (Mr. Collins) on securing this debate. I would have wished him better fortune in the timing, as it is an important subject and it is a pity to discuss it at such a late hour; but it is timely in that it is taking place on the day when dairy farmers have reached London in their campaign to increase public awareness of their serious plight. I am conscious that the march started in the hon. Gentleman's region, the north-west, in Carlisle, so it is suitable for him to have introduced the subject.
I am grateful for what the hon. Gentleman said about my right hon. Friend the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food and his willingness to meet members of the delegation today and to engage in discussions with them, examining the very difficult issues that face the dairy sector. The industry is important nationally. It is the largest and arguably most economically important of all the agricultural sectors.
The industry is also important regionally, as the hon. Gentleman said. He represents a constituency in which dairying is very important. I understand that Cumbria has the second largest breeding herd, exceeded only by Devon's. The hon. Member for Eddisbury (Mr. O'Brien) also referred to the importance of the industry in his area.
I share something in common with the hon. Member for Westmorland and Lonsdale, as one branch of my family comes from his constituency—and they were farming folk.
We recognise the severity of the problems. The hon. Gentleman is right to say that there is a variety of factors in the current situation. The most dramatic aspect is the fall in the price of milk, which has several causes. The hon. Gentleman referred to the fact that milk is less expensive than bottled water. One might also say that it is less expensive than some not very healthy fizzy drinks that we have been encouraged to drink in preference to milk. Indeed, we dealt with that subject in a Standing Committee last week, and at least one Conservative Front Bencher here tonight was there then.
The price has fallen especially dramatically in the United Kingdom. Prices are low in some other European countries, but there are some particularly British aspects to the crisis. Obviously, as the hon. Gentleman recognised, the strength of sterling against the euro is an important factor affecting agriculture and the dairy industry in two ways: not only the familiar problem of the high price of exports but the fact that the European Union support price is set in euros and its value falls as sterling appreciates. As the hon. Gentleman knows, that represents the market of last resort and provides a floor in the commercial market. That is an important factor, but at the same time the level of sterling is an incentive for imports into the UK and makes for problems with exports. It certainly adds very much to the competitive pressures on our producers.
I was not surprised that the hon. Gentleman also mentioned several issues concerning the marketing of milk. We know that the main deregulation took place in 1994, and at that time everyone in the industry was in a new and perhaps alarming situation. However, the second stage has involved the results of last year's Monopolies and Mergers Commission report into the marketing of

milk. That is an issue that the Agriculture Committee considered closely in its recent report on the marketing of milk, and I welcome that. In this short debate, it is not possible to go into all the different aspects of that report.
Despite the difficulties and frustrations involved in the whole process, I welcome the fact that Milk Marque chose to act positively and decisively to meet some of the criticisms in the MMC report. The successor organisations are in the process of getting up and running. Obviously, we want them to bring a new dynamism to the market and to have a positive effect on returns, even if only in the medium term, rather than the negative effect that many people worry will result.

Mr. Collins: The Minister will know that one of the issues for the successor bodies to Milk Marque is whether they will be allowed to go into processing. That is dependent on a decision that rests with the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry, who in turn has to wait for advice from the Director General of Fair Trading. The Select Committee was told that that would arrive some time near Easter. Does the Minister have any further information on an issue about which the dairy industry is waiting desperately to hear?

Ms Quin: I understand the anxiety of the dairy industry and dairy farmers about that matter, but the hon. Gentleman pre-empted my reply. The timetable is as he describes, and I cannot add anything to that this evening.
Government action has taken place on several fronts, despite the limitations on the Government, especially in terms of price setting and other forms of intervention. I am glad that the hon. Gentleman recognised those limitations. Some issues have had an effect on the dairy sector. When I first became an Agriculture Minister, dairy and cattle farmers were very worried about the impending introduction of cattle passports. We have alleviated that burden by deferring payment for the passports for two and a half years, and that will save a significant amount of money.
We have also undertaken to provide help to make it possible to have a generic promotion campaign for milk. That is important, because it is a long time since we have had such a campaign. All of us will remember the effectiveness of campaigns such as "Drinka pinta milka day", the bottles of milk dancing on to the doorstep and "Milk has gotta lotta bottle". They had an effect. I do not underestimate the potential of that, and I am glad that the processing side of the industry is committed to matching the sum raised by producers, so that a sizeable promotional campaign can be mounted. Clearly, we shall monitor that closely to see how effective it is, but Ministers are very committed to a project that has been welcomed by hon. Members of all parties.
The Government also support the continuation of European Union school milk scheme. That has been under threat, as the European Commission is looking to reduce its budget in all sorts of ways. The EU school milk subsidy came in for especially close scrutiny. My right hon. Friend the Minister spoke strongly about the matter in the Agriculture Council and received support from other Ministers. The plans to abandon the subsidy have


been shelved for the moment, although we must remain vigilant and continue to build alliances with other countries to try and ensure that the scheme can survive.
The hon. Gentleman specifically mentioned the importance of trying to get people in the dairy food chain together, and we agree. The hon. Gentleman will be aware of the food chain initiative that my right hon. Friend the Minister set in motion. It involves senior figures from MAFF, the National Farmers Union, the Food and Drink Federation and various retail groups, and its report showed that it is conscious of the importance of trying to get the various parts of the food chain working together.
The tensions and difficulties that exist between sectors were very well documented in the report from the Agriculture Committee. We shall study that report's recommendations in detail, but we also want to build on the momentum of the food chain initiative to achieve greater understanding of the pressures and constraints on each part of the food chain.
It is not true that there is no passing on of lower prices at the retail end, but there is a time lag in what is a slow and modest process, and I understand the frustrations of farmers who suffer as a result.
The investigation by the Competition Commission is also relevant and, when the elements of the food chain appear not to be co-operating, the commission is available to help. I can assure the hon. Gentleman that the Government are keen to make progress on both aspects of the food chain.
The hon. Gentleman also asked about the rural development regulation, and about how that might relate to small dairy farms. We hope that the various measures announced last December by my right hon. Friend the Minister as part of the rural development regulation and its implementation in this country will help the dairy sector.
I was pleased that the recent round of marketing awards under the agricultural marketing development scheme went to some innovative projects from the dairy sector. That justifies the way in which we have built on the agricultural development scheme in the rural development regulation to address some of the issues that the hon. Gentleman mentioned.
The hon. Gentleman also mentioned quotas. Our long-term approach in the European Union is for an orderly end to the milk quota system. We believe that the British dairy industry can compete in Europe. It has several natural advantages, such as good-quality pasture, and it has a good record with regard to quality standards.
However, many of the recommendations on marketing of product in the Select Committee report are well worth considering. I was also interested to hear some of the comments on the radio this morning from the president of the NFU. He spoke of the need for better organisation in the industry—

The motion having been made after Ten o'clock, and the debate having continued for half an hour, MR. DEPUTY SPEAKER adjourned the House without Question put, pursuant to the Standing Order.

Adjourned at ten minutes to Three o'clock.